The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results that scrapped the adverse facts available rate in a countervailing duty case, in a May 6 opinion. Judge Richard Eaton found that Commerce's eventual decision to ditch the AFA subsidy rate relating to alleged benefits that exporter Heze Huayi Chemical Co. received from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program was consistent with prior remand instructions. Plaintiffs Clearon and Occidental Chemical initially filed the challenge, claiming that the AFA rate for Heze relating to the EBCP was too low and inconsistent with prior Commerce practice.
The Court of International Trade will allow a customs broker test-taker to proceed with a challenge to his failing grade, denying a motion to dismiss from the government that argued his case didn’t meet procedural requirements. Byungmin Chae’s delay in appealing to the trade court was caused in part by CBP’s own misleading statements, and his early missteps in the case before hiring a lawyer should not bar him from a hearing in court, CIT said in a decision May 7.
The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in an antidumping case, finding that the agency did not allow for proper notice and response from South Korean steel exporter Hyundai Steel Co. In an April 27 opinion made public on May 6, Judge Richard Eaton ruled that Commerce also violated its statutory authority by assigning the all-others rate to one of Hyundai's affiliated freight companies -- dubbed “Company A” in the opinion. On remand, Commerce was instructed to identify the precise data that it judged insufficient and give Hyundai an opportunity to fix the deficiency.
Despite hotly contested litigation in the lower court, the Justice Department has been notably absent from an appeal of an antidumping case initially brought by exporter Goodluck India Limited. During May 3 oral argument in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, counsel for a group of tubing producers appealing the case refused to speculate on the government's lack of participation in the case but did point out that the Commerce Department did file its remand determination under respectful protest in the initial Court of International Trade proceedings (Goodluck India Limited, v. U.S. et al., Fed. Cir. # 2020-2017).
Apparel importer Imperia Trading's statement of material facts is filled with statements devoid of evidence and thus contrary to the rules of the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice argued in a May 5 motion to strike parts of Imperia's evidence from the record. While conceding such requests are rarely granted, DOJ asked the court to strike multiple paragraphs in the statement, saying they fail to cite any evidence, constitute legal arguments or conclusions of law, cite evidence that does not support the paragraph and rely on evidence containing untranslated foreign language.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Negative injury determinations that ended antidumping duty investigations on polyethylene terephthalate resin from Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea, Pakistan and Taiwan in 2018 will stand, after the Court of International Trade sustained a remand redetermination from the International Trade Commission that provided further explanation of the ITC’s decisions without any changes to the end result.
The Court of International Trade will allow a customs broker test-taker to proceed with a challenge to his failing grade, denying a motion to dismiss from the government that argued his case didn’t meet procedural requirements. Byungmin Chae’s delay in appealing to the trade court was caused in part by CBP’s own misleading statements, and his early missteps in the case before hiring a lawyer should not bar him from a hearing in court, CIT said in a decision May 7.
The Commerce Department's preliminary application of an adverse facts available rate for a mandatory respondent to more than 40 non-selected respondents in an antidumping duty administrative review on stainless steel flanges from India violates the agency's obligation to calculate accurate rates, the lawyer for some of those non-selected respondents said in a May 4 letter to the agency. Peter Koenig of Squire Patton criticized the agency's practice of selecting a limited number of mandatory respondents in antidumping reviews, finding AFA on the respondents, then applying the erroneously reached higher dumping rate to all other respondents. He noted that, in a recent case involving Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group, CIT found that this use of Commerce's "Mandatory Respondent Exception" goes against its statutory intention, which was to determine an "accurate all-others rate, based on a weighted average of rates determined for mandatory respondents" (see 2104300079). "Commerce should accurately calculate Chandan’s dumping margin, if not for Chandan (as should), but then for the 44 other Indian companies to whom Commerce is applying the Chandan dumping margin," Koenig's letter said. Chandan, the mandatory respondent, was assigned a 140.38% antidumping duty rate in the preliminary results of the review issued in February, and that rate was also extended to the non-selected respondents.
The Commerce Department backed its decision to not collapse companies into a single entity in an antidumping case, according to a May 5 reply brief to the Court of International Trade in support of the agency's remand redetermination. In a final affirmative antidumping duty determination on stainless steel flanges from India, Commerce originally consolidated Echjay, Echjay Industries Private Limited, Echjay Forgins Industry Private Limited and Spire Industries Private Limited into one entity since they were all owned by the Doshi family in India. After a CIT remand, Commerce reversed course, finding substantial evidence, including decrees from the Bombay High Court, indicating a “familial and business separation” between the companies. In its reply, Commerce addressed opposition from petitioners to the remand redetermination, and included a detailed analysis of why the companies are not affiliated and thus do not warrant being collapsed into a single entity.