A company unable to prove it has any entries for the purposes of obtaining a separate rate should not automatically be found to have no shipments and be rescinded from the review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a May 19 opinion. Though the appellate court found the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries unconvincing, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Linn and Raymond Chen said that Ningbo Qixin did not clear the bar for establishing no shipments, even though Commerce had rejected a separate rate for the company because it couldn't verify any entries.
The Court of International Trade acted on its own initiative to order a "sua sponte" stay in a case on whether the Commerce Department lawfully found that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) did not reimburse its affiliate BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) for antidumping duties on imports of hot-rolled steel flat products. Judge Richard Eaton said the case, which concerns the third administrative review of the AD order on these products from Australia, shares an identical issue with the U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S. case, which deals with the second administrative review of the same AD order. "That is, the sole issue in the prior U.S. Steel Corp. case was the reimbursement of antidumping duties -- one of two issues in the present case," Eaton said (U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00528).
Importer Repwire and exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's withdrawal of a separate-rate questionnaire it erroneously issued to Jin Tiong in an antidumping duty review. According to the notice of appeal, the companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said Commerce's rejection of Jin Tiong's answers as untimely was proper since the agency had withdrawn the questionnaire before the exporter submitted its response (see 2303200039) (Repwire v. United States, CIT # 22-00016).
The U.S.'s customs penalty suit against importer Wanxiang America Corp., a U.S. subsidiary of a Chinese manufacturing company, is a "money grab, plain and simple," Michael Roll, counsel for WXA, said during oral argument at the Court of International Trade on May 17. Roll said that because the U.S. is only seeking a penalty for WXA's entries from a company with a 92.84% dumping rate and not entries made before or after the ones at issue from a company with a zero percent rate, it is clear the government is trying to "grab the money" (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).
The Commerce Department's new proposed regulations covering trade remedy proceedings may lead to a "significant number of new allegations and arguments in AD/CVD proceedings," Sidley Austin said in a client alert this week. Highlighting three of the potential new tools to be added to the agency's toolkit in the proposed rules, Sidley added that one of the mechanisms -- Commerce's removal of the regulation barring it from countervailing transnational subsidies -- may violate World Trade Organization commitments.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered Judge Pauline Newman to not publicly disclose the names of witnesses in the court's ongoing investigation on whether the judge is fit to continue serving on the bench. Releasing the order publicly along with all other court orders and letters in the probe, per Newman's request, the appellate court said that Newman and her counsel remain bound by the court's confidentiality order in the investigation regarding future orders and filings.
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in an antidumping duty proceeding. Judge Jane Restani said the issue had already been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Commerce. The judge's one-page opinion on the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey is identical to the court's order two days prior, concluding a similar suit also brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann on the 2020-21 review of the AD order (see 2305160037) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 22-00057).
The Commerce Department failed to rely on the best available information when setting surrogate values for antidumping duty respondent Risen Energy Co.'s backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) inputs in the AD administrative review on solar cells from China in 2017-18, Risen argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Risen also challenged the Commerce's calculation of the company's financial ratios (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
Importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) failed to identify a flaw in the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning the origin of the company's uninterruptible power supplies, Judge Leo Gordon said in denying Cyber Power's bid for CIT reconsideration. The judge said the request "is premised on the incorrect assumption that the court found that" the importer overcame the presumption of correctness linked to CBP's country of origin determination, which found that the products were made in China.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: