The Commerce Department doesn't have to "undertake the impossible task of choosing a perfect or near-perfect methodology" when rooting out "masked" dumping, petitioner Welspun Tubular said in a Nov. 6 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Welspun added that Commerce didn't have to "follow the teachings of statisticians on the Cohen's d test simply because Commerce has decided in its expert opinion to rely on the Cohen's d formula and the effect size coefficient corresponding to a grossly perceptible difference to identify whether price differences between customers, regions, or time periods are significant" (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
There are other ways to achieve separate rate status in an antidumping duty review beyond filing a separate rate application, exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire argued in a Nov. 13 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer and exporter argued against the government, which claimed that Jin Tiong was not eligible for a separate rate in the 2019-20 AD review of aluminum wire and cable from China since it didn't submit a separate rate application, even though a separate rate questionnaire was accidentally sent to it (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).
The Commerce Department again failed to establish that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific as part of the countervailing duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 14 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly said that just because the subsidy program is limited, in this case to certain customers based on energy usage, doesn't mean that it is de jure specific. Commerce didn't explain how the program limits usage to certain industries or enterprises and failed to consider the program's economic and horizontal properties and application, the opinion said.
The Commerce Department didn't properly apply the "proper statutory test for affiliation" between antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. and one of its customers, BNK Steel Co., the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 13 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden said that Commerce, as part of the 2019-20 AD review of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, erred in basing its finding of affiliation between the two companies on a single shared human resources manager and the mere speculation that there could have been other ties between the companies.
The U.S. Judicial Conference and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved a series of increases to various national and local court fees to account for inflation, the appellate court announced. The new fees, which take effect Dec. 1, include an increase in the attorney admission fee, from $238, which currently includes a $50 local court fee, to $300, including a $101 local court fee. Docketing fees for petitions for review and for mandamus jumped from $500 to $600, and a fee for search of court records will rise from $32 to $34.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer URE NSP Corp. moved to dismiss its case at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's miscalculating of its antidumping duty payments on solar cells from Taiwan. The importer said in its complaint that CBP ignored its prior disclosure payments, then partially denied a protest seeking those funds (see 2308140010). The company asked the court to order a refund of about $311,00 plus interest for overpayment of duties (URE NSP Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00154).
Chinese tire exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, in the alternative, sever the consolidated action for the two companies. The exporters said that the "good cause" prompting this action is that both exporters are currently adherent to the word limit for a single brief even though both of their cases rest on entirely unique fact patterns (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
The U.S. challenged exporter Risen Energy Co.'s motion to amend its complaint to add a challenge to the Commerce Department's decision to treat Article 26(2) Tax Exemption Program as countervailable. Filing a brief at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 9, the government said the motion to amend "is futile, and thus lacks merit" since Risen "failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to this claim and none of the limited exceptions to the exhaustion requirement apply" (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00153).
The Commerce Department's decision to include importer Precision Components' goods in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China cuts against the "clear language of the scope" and Commerce's "historic treatment of the scope," Precision said in a Nov. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).