The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 28 sustained the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty proceedings despite the fact that the agency hadn't codified the policy in its regulations at the time the underlying review was challenged. Judges Todd Hughes, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Federal Circuit has a long line of cases upholding the policy and that, even if those cases didn't exist, Commerce didn't need to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to implement the policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 29 sustained the Commerce Department's 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey in which the agency's decision to use Turkish lira to value respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's home-market sales. While Habas said Commerce had to follow its precedent by using the respondent's dollar-denominated sales, Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce had no such obligation, since Habas failed to "reconcile its lira-denominated payment records with its reported dollar prices." The judges also rejected the respondent's claim that the use of the lira-denominated prices distorted the AD margin calculation, finding that Commerce properly relied on Habas' reported lira values, which were the only reliable prices.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 28 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 28 upheld the validity of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping proceedings despite the fact that Commerce had not codified the policy in its regulations at the time the policy was challenged. Judges Todd Hughes, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said there's a long line of CAFC cases finding that Commerce can lawfully assign an NME-wide AD rate to a cooperative mandatory respondent that has failed to rebut the presumption of foreign state control. In addition, the judges said even if these cases didn't exist, the policy didn't require notice-and-comment rulemaking, since the validity of an "evidentiary presumption turns on its rationality." The judges then held that there's "a sound and rational connection between a finding that a country is an NME country and the inference that exporters in that country are subject to government control."
In a July 21 opinion made public July 25, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly ruled that, when deciding to impose a double remedies offset in an antidumping duty review with a parallel countervailing duty review, the Commerce Department must calculate whether a countervailable subsidy would have decreased a non-market economy exporter’s prices and dumping margin, not whether the exporter’s prices actually declined during a review period. However, she sustained the department’s choice of Romania as a surrogate in AD/CVD reviews of aluminum foil from China (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 25 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on July 23 dismissed a group of three importers' challenge to the Commerce Department's 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood products from China, for lack of prosecution. The court noted that importers Cabinetworks Group Michigan, Cabinetworks Group Middlefield and ACPI Wood Products failed to file a complaint within the statutorily prescribed period after filing a summons (Cabinetworks Group Michigan v. United States, CIT # 25-00135).
The Commerce Department fully supported its finding that importer Deacero's pre-stressed concrete steel wire (PC) strand circumvented the antidumping duty order on PC strand from Mexico, the U.S. argued in a July 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said Commerce fully supported its comparison of Deacero's U.S. and Mexican production facilities, finding that Deacero's PC strand production process is "minor or insignificant," and determination that Deacero's sourcing of inputs from its Mexican affiliates supported a circumvention finding (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 24 on AD/CVD proceedings: