The petitioner in an antidumping case, Catfish Farmers of America, is incorrect in its assessment that the Commerce Department erred by departing from the "expected method" for calculating the antidumping duty rate for non-individually reviewed "separate rate" respondents in an administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Department of Justice said. Responding to the petitioner in June 28 comments on the second remand results at the Court of International Trade, DOJ, along with comments from the plaintiffs led by GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, said Commerce properly adhered to court orders by setting a lower rate for the exporters (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, et al., v. United States, CIT #21-00063).
The following new requests for antidumping and countervailing duty scope rulings were recently filed with the Commerce Department:
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 29 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Uttam Galva Steels, mandatory respondent in a countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India, will appeal an April 29 Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available to determine its countervailing duty rate, according to its June 25 notice of appeal. Judge Leo Gordon said the use of AFA for Uttam Galva and not the other mandatory respondent in the review was justified since Uttam Galva failed to provide information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry (see 2104300045). Uttam Galva was saddled with a 588.42% CVD rate (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, CIT #19-00044).
The Court of International Trade erred in rejecting aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio's bid to intervene in a case challenging the determination of duty evasion in which Kingtom was the company alleged to be aiding in the evasion, Kingtom said in a June 25 brief requesting the court's reconsideration. Kingtom says that the court overlooked Kingtom's interest in the case and failed to consider that Kingtom shares a legal claim with the plaintiff (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00198).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices June 28 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department was right to rely on a differential pricing analysis to apply an average-to-transaction comparison method to SeAH in an antidumping administrative review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea, the Department of Justice said in June 21 comments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. SeAH's points to the contrary rely on arguments that have been "rejected repeatedly" in bids to strike down the longstanding practice, DOJ said. The exporter's arguments against the practice also stand at odds with the Federal Circuit decision in Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, the comments said.
Commerce Wrongly Found Affiliation Between Aluminum Sheet Producer and Input Supplier, Exporter Says
Oman Aluminum Rolling Co. (OARC) is not affiliated with a supplier of a key common alloy aluminum sheet input despite the owner of OARC also owning 40% of the input producer, OARC said in a June 25 complaint in the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department's incorrect conclusion of an affiliation led to the agency's application of adverse facts available (AFA) in an antidumping duty investigation of aluminum sheet from Oman, the exporter said. The court should remand this finding for further consideration along with Commerce's use of AFA, because OARC complied with all proceedings in the AD investigation, OARC said (Oman Aluminum Rolling Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00266).