The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from Korea, in a July 9 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett upheld the results after Commerce dropped its adverse inference against Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. and Hyosung Corporation when calculating their antidumping duty rate. The result left both respondents in the review with a zero percent duty rate.
A group of surety associations should not be able to argue against when the six-year limitations period begins for a customs bond due to their role in "abetting the new shipper bond disaster," a group of domestic agricultural goods producers said in a July 8 amicus brief in the Court of International Trade. The brief was filed to oppose the surety associations' motion to intervene in the lawsuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).
The Commerce Department on July 2 finalized a scope ruling that self-drilling anchor bolt systems (SDABS) imported by Midwest Diversified Technologies are not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on forged steel fittings from China (A-570-067/C-570-068). Just as it had in a preliminary scope ruling issued in May (see 2105200027), the agency found the fittings, used to improve the structural integrity of soil or rock to provide a stable foundation for construction, are not “forged” for the purposes of the order because they are not intended to hold high pressure and lack any pressure rating at all. Petitioners in the case raised the possibility that companies could circumvent AD duties by omitting a pressure rating from their pipe fittings (see 2106090057). In response, Commerce clarified “that the absence of a pressure rating or the lack of a pressure rating in this instance was only one characteristic among many that, taken together, led to our conclusion that MDT’s SDABS couplers are outside the scope of the Orders.”
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 12 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India, in a July 9 confidential opinion. Judge Claire Kelly subsequently issued a letter, stating her intention to have the public version of the opinion published “on or shortly after” July 19. Parties to the case are to review the confidential opinion and identify any confidential information to be bracketed for redaction in the public version. The case, according to the Jan. 30, 2020, complaint, concerned Commerce's use of a particular market situation to increase the cost of hot-rolled coil, the primary input, while computing the cost of the foreign like product in the below-cost analysis of home market sales for the Indian pipes and tubes (Garg Tube Export LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00026).
The Commerce Department was permitted to apply "facts otherwise available" in an antidumping duty investigation where it was unable to verify certain information due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Justice said in a July 2 brief to the Court of International Trade. Responding to plaintiffs, led by Bonney Forge Corp., DOJ said that the pandemic and travel restrictions prohibited Commerce from conducting on-site verifications during an investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge Corporation et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
The Court of International Trade issued a pair of decisions on July 12 applying precedent from a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision which found that strike pin anchors are not within the scope of the antidumping duty orders on steel nails from Vietnam. One of the decisions found masonry anchors from Midwest Fastener Corp. aren't subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel nails from Vietnam. The other, brought by Fastenal Company Purchasing, said that the company's zinc and nylon anchors "do not fall within the scope of Commerce’s antidumping order on certain steel nails from China." The Federal Circuit opinion, titled OMG, Inc. v. U.S., rejected Commerce's logic that the drive pin component of the anchors is basically a nail.
The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, in a July 12 order. In its case, exporter Ancientree challenged three aspects of the review -- Commerce's selection of Romania as the primary surrogate country, the agency's financial ratio calculation and its selection of Harmonized Tariff Schedule headings for surrogate value inputs. Judge Gary Katzmann found that the Romania pick and surrogate values selection were properly supported but that Commerce's explanation of its financial ratio calculation was arbitrary and capricious.
A furniture importer's argument that the Enforce and Protect Act investigation finding it guilty of antidumping duty evasion was unconstitutional is not valid since the importer does not have a protectable interest, the Department of Justice said in a July 9 brief in the Court of International Trade. Since a protectable interest is necessary to claim a due process violation has been committed, Aspects Furniture International's constitutional arguments against the EAPA process fall flat, DOJ said (Aspects Furnitre International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).