The Commerce Department continues to find that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel by way of cheap electricity despite a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion to the contrary, in July 6 remand results. Filing the second remand results of its kind in a second, separate Court of International Trade case brought by POSCO, Commerce held that POSCO's countervailing duty in an investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Korea will remain unchanged (POSCO v. United States, CIT #17-00137).
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's decision in the 15th antidumping administrative review of fish fillets from Vietnam that I.D.I. International Development and Investment Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of government control, in a July 6 order. The opinion in the case is confidential and will remain as such until Judge M. Miller Baker considers redactions for business confidential information with the litigants. Responses to the confidential opinion are due by July 20.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 7 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration wanted to intervene in a countervailing duty case on silicon metal from Kazakhstan in the Court of International Trade in June. It was denied for failing to comply with CIT Rule 24 -- the rules governing intervention. In particular, the defendant-intervenors and petitioners in the underlying CVD case, Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon, said the trade ministry failed to state the issues it wanted to litigate (see 2106110029). Now, the ministry is back in CIT, filing a "renewed motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenor" on June 16 (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).
By subjecting aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor to two antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigations for the same conduct and entries, CBP violated Global Aluminum's rights to due process, the importer said. Filing a July 2 complaint in the Court of International Trade, Global Aluminum called out the customs agency for breaking "long-standing principles of fundamental fairness" by including the importer in multiple evasion investigations under the Enforce and Protect Act -- a process already riddled with due process violations, according to the complaint (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00312).
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 Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 6 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
Frozen diced garlic imported by Van Drunen is not subject to antidumping duties on fresh garlic from China (A-570-831), the Commerce Department said in a June 29 scope ruling. The agency said that the scope of the order covers garlic “whole or separated into constituent cloves” but does not have language including any type of garlic reduced in size beyond cloves, such as chopped or diced garlic.
The Commerce Department acted in conflict with its established practice by finding that window wall system kits are outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in a June 25 complaint. In the scope ruling, Commerce held that Reflection Window + Wall's window wall system kits qualify for the "finished goods kits" exclusion of the orders. This determination is not accurate, the coalition said, since the window wall system kits are not assembled as is into a finished product and are instead "generally assembled, attached, and sealed in the field and can interlock and cover large portions of the exterior of a building" (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00253).