The Commerce Department's refusal to calculate a non-adverse facts available rate for all other respondents in a countervailing duty review is not in accordance with the law, steel wheel importer Rimco said in its Nov. 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The agency's move of averaging the AFA rates to come up with a 388.1% all-others rate in the review is not backed by substantial evidence and cuts against a past CIT ruling, Rimco said (Rimco, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00588).

The Department of Justice's insistence on defending the Commerce Department's position regarding China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in countervailing duty investigations is "mystifying" seeing as it refuses to appeal the issue after multiple defeats at the Court of International Trade, respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. said in a Nov. 30 brief (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings v. U.S., CIT #21-00166).

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 2 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel reinforcing bar from Turkey. Judge Claire Kelly found that it was reasonable for Commerce to assign non-mandatory respondent Colakoglu a rate from a previous administrative review where it did serve as a mandatory respondent, even though both actual mandatory respondents in the review at issue in the case received de minimis rates. Kelly also said that it did not matter that record evidence did not support the CVD rate received by Colakoglu since it is its responsible to populate the record, which it failed to do.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia covering entries in 2016-2017, in a Nov. 30 confidential opinion. The case, filed by mandatory respondent BlueScope Steel Ltd., challenged the final results for hitting BlueScope with adverse facts available. The seven-count action alleged, among other things, that Commerce's decision to apply AFA based on the fact that BlueScope withheld requested information is contradicted by record evidence. In a letter submitted to the litigants, Judge Richard Eaton said he wants bracketed information reviewed by Dec. 7 (BlueScope Steel Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00057).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department must reconsider its use of an adverse inference in an antidumping review on Italian pasta since it failed to find out whether a respondent did not to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 30 opinion. However, the court upheld the remaining elements of the decision, including Commerce's use of facts available and the agency's rejection of the respondent's post-verification arguments for different classification systems for the pasta's protein content and shape.

Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. will appeal an October Court of International Trade opinion that upheld CBP's finding that it evaded antidumping duties on cased pencils from China, according to a Nov. 29 notice of appeal. The pencil importer will appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CIT originally remanded the case to CBP after finding that the customs agency did not provide adequate public summaries of business confidential information during the evasion investigation. Chief Judge Mark Barnett then upheld the evasion determination after finding that CBP cleared this hurdle and that the summaries did not violate Royal Brush's due process rights (see 2111010036) (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00198).

Surety company American Home Assurance Company wants a stay in its case, brought by the U.S., in which the government is seeking to collect antidumping duties on entries of canned mushrooms from China brought in between 2000 and 2001, according to its Nov. 26 motion at the Court of International Trade. Filed without consent from the Department of Justice, AHAC wants all proceedings halted in the lawsuit until the court renders a judgment in a similar case, United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, currently pending before Judge Stephen Vaden (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

The Commerce Department erred by including both research and development expenses for non-subject goods and "compensation for payment" expenses for non-subject merchandise in the general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation during an antidumping duty review, exporter Nagase and Co. said in a Nov. 24 complaint. Filing its case at the Court of International Trade, Nagase also pushed back against the Commerce Department's calculation of the assessment rate (Nagase & Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).