An importer of Vietnamese countertops said in a response to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that it didn’t deny some of its countertops should have been covered by AD orders on Chinese quartz slabs -- it just hadn’t known they had originated from China (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Isihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping suit and secure an injunction on its entries because its entries have "already been liquidated." Judge Jane Restani said that because the company failed to secure an injunction from the court prior to the liquidation of its entries, the court can't provide the relief the company seeks.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 8 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. will appear for oral argument in an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit despite appellants Risen Energy Co. and Canadian Solar waiving their rights to appear. Risen initially brought suit to challenge the 2017-18 AD review on solar cells from China. The company said the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). DOJ attorney Ashley Akers will appear for the government (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 said the Commerce Department's use of only adverse facts available rates to set the rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping proceedings, known as the "expected method," is not presumptively unreasonable. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said instead that the "burden is on Commerce to justify a departure from the expected method, not to justify its use."
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping case and secure an injunction on its entries. Judge Jane Restani said the case presents a "common situation," whereby the court can't provide Habas the relief it seeks because its entries have liquidated, despite the company's intent to protest the liquidation.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Aug. 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave text-only notice to exporter Canadian Solar that it failed to respond to the court's notice of oral argument in an appeal on the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Exporter Risen Energy Co. filed the appeal to claim that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). While Risen waived its right to appear at oral argument (see 2408020019), the court told Canadian Solar that failure to respond to notice of oral argument "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
A petitioner supported the Commerce Department’s decision, on remand, to use Brazilian rather than Mexican labor cost data in its calculation of the antidumping duty margins for two exporters of steel kegs from China (see 2407240018) (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 5 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to lower the countervailing duty subsidy rate for exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, from 10.54% to 0.87%. The result is a final, recalculated 22.2% total subsidy rate for Yama in the 2017 administrative review of the CVD order on narrow woven ribbons from China.