Antidumping respondent Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V., along with its U.S. affiliate, will appeal a December Court of International opinion that found that the Commerce Department can reduce an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of their Section 232 duties paid. According to the Feb. 16 notice of appeal, Deacero will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court also said that Commerce does not have to notify the respondent that it intends to reduce the U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid since notice and comment procedures don't apply to AD administrative procedures (see 2112200051). The case concerns an AD administrative review on rebar from Mexico (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, CIT #20-03924).

Tire exporter Pirelli Tyre signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case that said the company properly showed that it wasn't under Chinese government control for the first 10 months of an AD review period. Pirelli, a consolidated plaintiff in the AD action, sued to contest Commerce's failure to make this determination (Qingdao Sentury Tire Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00079).

The International Trade Commission can't use export data when making a critical circumstances determination to find whether a surge in imports undermines the remedial effect of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders in question, plaintiff MTD Products said in a Feb. 11 reply brief (MTD Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00264).

Both CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate and its Office of Regulation and Rulings failed to make a factual finding when it said that importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the importers and Dominican producer Kingtom Aluminio said. In two motions for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the plaintiffs and Kingtom both argued that CBP skirted the evidentiary standard, instead basing its conclusion on a vague reference to Kingtom's ties to China and discrepancies between the importers' and Kingtom's records (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00198).

The Commerce Department abused its discretion by rejecting filings in antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations that were submitted 21 and 87 minutes late, respectively, the Court of International Trade said in a pair of Feb. 15 decisions. Commerce's denials of the questionnaire responses from a Turkish exporter amounted to a "draconian penalty" on the AD/CVD respondent for an "inadvertent technical error by its counsel that had no appreciable effect" on the investigations, the court said. The result was a 53.65% dumping rate and 158.44% countervailing duty rate for the exporter.

The Court of International Trade agreed to interview three Italian witnesses in an ongoing challenge brought by Aida on the valuation of its entries of industrial stamping presses. On Feb. 14, Judge Stephen Vaden granted a joint request (see 2202140042) that had asked him to issue an order to appoint a commissioner authorized to take testimony in Italy and to issue a Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance to local counsels in Italy representing both parties. The three witnesses possess specialized knowledge required in the case. Aida claims that CBP liquidated two entries based on an allegedly incorrect appraisal by Aida's customs broker in 2015. In order to move forward with the case, both Aida and the Department of Justice agreed that testimony regarding the value of the imported presses was required.

The Court of International Trade denied a motion to stay in a challenge to the all-others rate in a countervailing duty administrative review until a decision is made on a motion to dismiss the case. Denying the motion from petitioner Dexstar Wheel in a text order, Judge Mark Barnett ordered that a joint proposed briefing schedule be submitted by close of business on Feb. 15. Rimco filed the lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's all-others rate in the countervailing duty review of steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China. Dexstar argued that Commerce did not actually set an all-others rate in the review since the only two respondents for which rates were given received the China-wide adverse facts available rate. The petitioner moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim (see 2201250070) (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).

A respondent in an antidumping duty investigation says Commerce's failure to conduct on-site verification cost it the opportunity to correct deficiencies in questionnaires sent by the agency instead, causing the respondent, Asia Pacific Fibers, to get a total adverse facts available AD rate, the company said in a Feb. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers TBK v. United States, CIT #22-00007).

The Commerce Department reversed its decision to collapse two mandatory respondents and one of their affiliates in an antidumping duty investigation. In a bid to bring its stance in line with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Commerce said in Feb. 14 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade that evidence to collapse all three entities was insufficient, particularly because evidence from the two mandatory respondents didn't show any common ownership. The agency also reinstated its use of adverse facts available over one of the respondents' reporting of its products' yield strength (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #16-00138).

The Commerce Department erred when it found that Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from China via the United Arab Emirates, AGIS said in its Feb. 14 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1199).