The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) doesn't require a level of trade adjustment to account for "any difference in selling activities," the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Upholding the Commerce Department's level of trade regulations, Judge Mark Barnett then sustained its application to antidumping duty respondent Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate Bancolor Baux in which the agency said the companies sold common alloy aluminum sheet in its home market of Spain at only one level of trade.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 26 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 25 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case regarding the propriety of the Commerce Department's approach to rejecting untimely submissions. In August, the appellate court said Commerce abused its discretion in rejecting a submission from respondent Tau-Ken Temir in the CVD investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan that was filed one hour and 41 minutes late (see 2508040031). The court said that, going forward, courts considering the agency's rejection of untimely documents shall consider the "remedial-not-punitive purpose" of AD/CVD laws, the burden imposed on Commerce that would result from accepting the submission, whether "any finality concerns would be implicated" and the "late-filing party's efforts" and its "reasons for the submission's untimeliness" (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Commerce Department on Sept. 24 again maintained its calculation of an input’s tier two price benchmark and again applied adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in its new results on remand regarding the 2020 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on Chinese multilayered wood flooring (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that importer Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Timothy Reif upheld CBP's decision to set the "effective date of the evasion determination" at the start date for the period of investigation rather than the date the Commerce Department found Blue Pipe's product to fall within the scope of the AD order.
The Commerce Department adequately supported its decision to find that antidumping respondent Compania Valencia de Aluminio Baux and its affiliate, Bancolor Baux, only sold common alloy aluminum sheet in one level of trade in its home market of Spain, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 25. Judge Mark Barnett said the relevant AD statute doesn't require Commerce to "recognize a distinct level of trade in connection with any differences in selling activities," finding the agency's level of trade regulations to comply with the AD laws.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Sept. 25 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Sept. 23 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
After the Court of International Trade’s remand of the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty review of Chinese-origin multilayered wood flooring (see 2504030070), the department maintained its decisions to both use a larger, less-specific dataset for calculating Tier II benchmarks over a smaller, more-specific one and to apply adverse facts available for the Chinese government’s refusal to provide government documents showing non-ownership (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00210).
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 25 sustained CBP's finding that Blue Pipe Steel Center evaded the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. While Blue Pipe consented to the application of the evasion determination to its goods after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Commerce Department's scope ruling including its dual-stenciled pipe in the order, the company said the determination should run from the start of the scope inquiry and not the start of the evasion investigation. Judge Timothy Reif rejected this request, finding that the Enforce and Protect Act's lack of a "reasonable notice" requirement and the fact that the AD order had no clear exclusions warrants applying the evasion determination to the start of the investigation.