The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 30 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
The Commerce Department will not modify the scope of its ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum foil from Armenia, Brazil, Oman, Russia and Turkey in preliminary AD duty determinations now imminent in the cases, Commerce said in a preliminary scope memorandum issued April 27. The agency ruled against requests from respondents to the investigations to exclude household aluminum foil and thin-gauge foil (with a thickness less than 7 microns), deferring to petitioners’ wishes not to exclude the products. Both products are covered by the scope of the AD/CVD investigations as currently written.
Diamond sawblades made by Protech in Canada from a core and segments each of Chinese and non-Chinese origin are not subject to antidumping duties on diamond sawblades from China (A-570-900), but some are covered by duties nonetheless due to Protech’s partial ineligibility for making the required certifications, the Commerce Department said in a scope ruling issued April 27.
Following a court-ordered remand to address due process concerns in an Enforce and Protect Act case, CBP has failed again to provide Royal Brush Manufacturing “notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” the importer argued in an April 26 response to CBP's remand redetermination. Despite some changes to comply with the Court of International Trade decision that found fault with CBP's finding that Royal Brush evaded antidumping duties on cased pencils from China by way of transshipment through the Philippines, Royal Brush continued to take issue with CBP's public summaries of key case information and the agency's failure to properly notify the company when new factual information surfaced via a verification report.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld a lower court decision that found the Commerce Department correctly applied adverse facts available to a Mexican exporter after it submitted corrected cost data without adequate information in an antidumping duty administrative review.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices April 29 on AD/CV duty proceedings:
Filers of a recent petition for antidumping duties on raw honey Argentina, Brazil, India, Ukraine and Vietnam told the Commerce Department April 23 that the scope of the proposed investigations should be amended to set specific criteria for the filtering out of pollen. The scope clarification, filed by the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association, says “raw honey” is typically unfiltered, as opposed to processed honey that has been filtered to remove pollen, wax and other impurities. While the scope in the petition said that “raw honey has not been filtered to a level that results in the removal of most or all of the pollen,” the petitioners now propose to add the phrase, “e.g., a level that removes pollen to below 25 microns,” to the end of that statement. They say 25 microns is the average size of pollen filtered out by honey packers. “Honey that tests for particulates, including pollen 25 micron or more, remains raw honey for purposes of this investigation,” they said.
Petitioners in an antidumping duty investigation of seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from Ukraine recently filed briefs opposing a Ukrainian exporter’s proposal to negotiate a suspension agreement in the ongoing investigation. Tenaris USA, a domestic manufacturer that supports the petition, says a suspension agreement proposed by Interpipe “will not be effective, and that an antidumping duty order would better discipline Interpipe’s dumping of SSLPP in the United States,” in a filing April 27 with the Commerce Department.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Aluminum extrusion importer Global Aluminum Distributor filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Enforce and Protect A investigations, becoming the latest to challenge the process for countering antidumping duty evasion. In an April 28 complaint, Global Aluminum said CBP's EAPA process violated procedural requirements and the importer's constitutional rights related to due process and excessive fines, and that CBP is unfairly subjecting a company to two EAPA investigations for the same conduct and entries. Separate from other EAPA complaints, Global Aluminum claims that the duties assessed via the evasion finding constitutes a violation of the Eight Amendment for excessive fines.