The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's reversion to its initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty in an antidumping duty investigation, both the plaintiff, Borusan Mannemsann, and the antidumping petitioners said. However, the sides were divided over what to do about Commerce's failure to address Borusan's date of sale, with Borusan simply calling for CIT to sustain the results and the petitioners calling for another remand to address the sale date issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The World Trade Organization published the agenda for the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body, set for Nov. 29. The agenda includes status reports by the U.S. on the implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB on: antidumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan; antidumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from South Korea; certain methodologies and their application to antidumping proceedings involving China; and Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act. Other such status reports expected are from the European Union on measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products, and from Indonesia on horticultural products, animals and animal products. The EU is expected to make a statement about the implementation of DSB recommendations on the U.S.'s Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000; and the U.S., on the EU's measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft. Also, a long list of countries, excluding the U.S., made a proposal on appellate body appointments.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 23 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred in using the Cohen's d test to identify potential masked dumping in an antidumping investigation, Ashley Furniture argued in a Nov. 19 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Tapping a recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that questioned the validity of the standardized mean difference test, Ashley Furniture argued that Commerce's use of the test in the AD investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea rests on the same faulty assumptions that the Federal Circuit already rejected (Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #32-00283).
Antidumping duty respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes and Pipes Ind. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade over the Commerce Department's denial of part of its responses in an AD administrative review. The company challenges Commerce's rejection of its questionnaire responses for being untimely filed for being nearly two hours late, despite COVID-19-related technical difficulties. The decision was especially egregious since Commerce granted itself lengthy extensions to meet deadlines in the review, the company said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00587).
Goods coming from a non-market economy may be denied first sale valuation due to the market-distorting policies of the non-market economy, the Department of Justice said in a Nov. 19 brief filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Arguing the appellate court should uphold a Court of International Trade ruling questioning the use of first sale on goods from NMEs, DOJ pushed back against plaintiff Meyer Corp.'s contention that NME policies cannot be included in "any non-market influences" -- any of which the U.S. can use to deny an importer the use of first sale. Notably, DOJ did not whole-heartedly embrace the notion that goods coming from an NME are immediately disqualified from receiving first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation, U.S. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).
A World Trade Organization dispute panel found the U.S. violated WTO rules during investigations leading up to the imposition of countervailing duties on ripe olives from Spain. The panel found that the U.S. erred when finding that subsidies given to Spanish raw olive growers under the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy were specific to the olive growers, a finding that was inconsistent with measures in the WTO's Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Court of International Trade independently came to the same conclusion. In June, the court said that the countervailing duties could not stand since they were not specific to Spanish olive growers (see 2106170075). The panel also said the Commerce Department's regulation permitting it to deem the full amount of subsidies taken in by raw olive growers to have passed through to the downstream producers lacks any real factual basis and is inconsistent with WTO rules. The panel did not find, however, that the antidumping duties on the same goods violated the trade body's rules. "The Commission's efforts to vigorously defend the interests and rights of EU producers, in this case growers of Spanish ripe olives, are now paying off," Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU's commissioner for trade, said. "The WTO has upheld our claims about anti-subsidy duties being unjustified and in violation of WTO rules. These duties severely hit Spanish olive producers, who saw their exports to the US fall dramatically as a result. We now expect the US to take the appropriate steps to implement the WTO ruling, so that exports of ripe olives from Spain to the US can resume under normal conditions.”
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 22 on AD/CV duty proceedings: