The Commerce Department stuck with its application of adverse facts available over certain countervailing duty respondents' alleged use of China's Exporter Buyer's Credit Program in its Feb. 9 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, responding to a series of questions the court wanted answered on why the agency's lack of certain information from the Chinese government precluded its ability to verify that the respondents didn't use the program (Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00113).

The Court of International Trade reported Feb. 8 that mediation over certain elements of a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge resulted in a settlement of all issues. The trade court reported the same outcome for two similar cases Feb. 4 (see 2202040041). The mediation was held by Judge Leo Gordon and was ordered after the plaintiffs, Voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp. and Edro Specialty Steels, wanted a status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries. Specifics of the mediation were not made known. Voestalpine and Edro brought their case to CIT to contest the denial of 502 exclusion requests for high alloyed specialty steel products (see 2110010032) (Voestalpine High Performance Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00093).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case after AD separate rate respondent Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited said that it received full relief resulting from the liquidation of its entries and a refund of excess duties paid. The case stems from an antidumping duty administrative review of orders on multilayered wood flooring from China. Following multiple court decisions and remand results (see 2107130080), Fine Furniture's case was stayed pending a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which eventually found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping duty order. Since the mandatory respondents in the underlying antidumping duty order received de minimis rates in Commerce's final determination, Fine Furniture was removed from the review. This led to the AD duty rate for all separate rate respondents falling to zero percent. No parties opposed the remand results. (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 22-9, CIT Consol. #14-00135, dated 02/07/22, Judge Timothy Stanceu)

The Commerce Department erred when it found that two countervailing duty review mandatory respondents did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation, the CVD petitioner, Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment, said in a Feb. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT #22-00002).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department cannot rely on adverse facts available in response the Chinese government's failure to provide certain information relating to its Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 8 decision. Adding another to a line of decisions striking down the application of AFA in such circumstances, the court said Commerce has not shown why this information is necessary to verify that the CVD respondents, and their U.S. customers, did not use the program.

Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton expressed skepticism over the Commerce Department's assumption of 24 working days per month for calculating the surrogate labor rate in an antidumping duty case, during a Feb. 8 oral argument. The Department of Justice backed the use of the 24 working days standard, arguing that it is agency practice to use this number. Since counsel for Commerce at the oral argument could not provide a reason that the 24 working days standard exists, as opposed to a 19 or 20 working day alternative floated by the plaintiff, Eaton said that it should be easy to part with past agency practice as it wasn't an explained action (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. United States, CIT #20-03948).

The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases filed by BASF. The decision to consolidate follows a motion by BASF to combine the cases in the interests of avoiding "unnecessary costs or delay." Both cases involve the same product and the same underlying matter of law: whether a formulated beta-carotene product used by BASF’s customers as a source of provitamin A is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2936.90.01 as “Provitamins, unmixed,” duty free, or subheading 2106.90.99, as “Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other.,” dutiable at the rate of 6.4%. Judge Richard Eaton granted BASF's request, as it would "promote the just, speedy, and less expensive determination of this action." After Feb. 7, the combined cases will proceed as number 12-00422.

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision bolsters the U.S.'s case in a dispute over whether China's provision of electricity qualifies as a countervailable benefit, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 7 notice of supplemental authority submitted to the Court of International Trade. On Jan. 28, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can use adverse facts available over the Chinese government's failure to provide information on its price-setting practices in a countervailing duty review concerning its provision of electricity (see 2201280033). In a case brought by Risen Energy Co. related to the subsequent review of the same CVD order on solar cells from China, DOJ told the trade court that the January decision backs its argument (Risen Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03912).

The Commerce Department can easily verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) in countervailing duty reviews, plaintiff Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. told the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 4 brief. Refuting Commerce's contention that it needed certain information from the Chinese government to verify non-use, which has been struck down by the trade court, Yama said that the agency actually had all it needed to verify that the CVD respondent's U.S. customers didn't use the program (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00402).