The Commerce Department's conclusion that Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio had exports subject to the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China based on CBP's Enforce and Protect Act investigation is an "abdication of its legal responsibility" to conduct administrative reviews, Kingtom said in an April 8 complaint. Taking its grievance to the Court of International Trade, Kingtom also said that the decision to find that the exporter had goods subject to the AD order based on adverse facts available is a due process violation (Kingtom Aluminio v. U.S., CIT #22-00072 to -00079).

The Court of International Trade, in an April 4 opinion made public April 12, sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's pick of Malaysia as the primary surrogate country and the calculation of surrogate financial ratios. However, the judge remanded Commerce's decision to value silver paste using Malaysian import data, valuation of mandatory respondent Risen's ethyl vinyl acetate and backsheet, use of partial adverse facts available to value missing factor of production data and calculation of the separate rate.

Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, had to file a protest to properly establish jurisdiction to challenge the liquidation of its entries, DOJ argued in an April 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to SIS's arguments that there was nothing to protest at the time since the countervailing duty rate was not final, DOJ said that this position is incorrect since the importer should have moved to suspend liquidation during the CVD review. Failing to do so precluded the ability to judicially challenge the liquidations, the brief said (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).

The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available over antidumping duty respondent Euro SME's reporting of certain U.S. inland freight data was illegal, Euro said in an April 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The respondent filed the case to contest Commerce's final results in the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Malaysia. Euro further challenged Commerce's decision to give only a partial credit for revenue associated with its U.S. movement expenses and the use of partial AFA over the reporting of certain home market freight data (Euro SME SDN Bhd v. U.S., CIT #22-00108).

The Commerce Department found on remand that antidumping duty respondent Power Steel Co. did not pay Section 232 duties on two entries of steel concrete rebar, dropping the duties paid as part of the exporter's sales price used to establish its base export price in an antidumping duty administrative review. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on April 8, Commerce lowered Power Steel's dumping margin from 3.27% to 0.01%, locking in a finding that Power Steel did not make sales at less than normal value (Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03771).

The Commerce Department granted a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey (Prolamsa) on remand at the Court of International Trade, reversing course from its previous position. Finding that the totality of evidence supports the position that Prolamsa made sales at two levels of trade, Commerce dropped Prolamsa's dumping rate from 7.47% to 0.89% (Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT #20-00166).

The Commerce Department erred in using an allocation method for Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's (SMPC) certification expenses that covered the whole period of review, SMPC said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By doing so, Commerce violated its own practice of using the most detailed transaction-specific expense data and distorted the data, the exporter said (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT #22-00107).

Arguments from antidumping plaintiffs, led by Wilmar Trading, looking to invoke a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion on whether a particular market situation exists "significantly overstates" the case's relevance, DOJ said in an April 7 reply brief (Wilmar Trading PTE v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00121).

The government has no cause of action to pursue counterclaims once liquidation is finalized, and the challenge of a denied protest at the Court of International Trade does not reopen the window for reliquidation at higher duty rates, Cyber Power Systems said in an April 5 brief. The brief is in support of a previous motion to dismiss a counterclaim by the government seeking to reclassify its imported cables from China at a higher duty rate (see 2203180042) (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00200).

Section 232 steel tariffs paid by importer North American Interpipe should be deducted from its U.S. price in an antidumping proceeding, the importer, along with its Ukrainian manufacturer, argued in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Taking a novel approach to this position -- which has been routinely defeated at CIT -- Interpipe said the national security tariffs should be deducted due to their tentative nature given that a number of exclusion requests were retroactively granted in a separate CIT case challenging the exclusion denials (Interpipe Ukraine v. U.S., CIT #22-00066).