The Commerce Department will no longer apply adverse facts available to the antidumping rate for an Indian shrimp exporter, it said in remand results filed May 4 (Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00201). The filing follows a Feb. 3 Court of International Trade decision which found that Commerce did not aid a small, first-time mandatory respondent to an AD case enough and unlawfully applied AFA to the exporter (see 2102030006). Commerce will now use neutral facts available, leading the agency to drop frozen warmwater shrimp exporter Elque Group's dumping margin to 27.66% from 110.9%.

The Court of International Trade ruled that the Commerce Department improperly applied adverse facts available to Chinese ribbon exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. in a countervailing duty administrative review. In an April 30 opinion, Judge Timothy Stanceu found that Commerce did not consider record evidence fairly when determining whether Yama received a subsidy from the Export Buyer's Credit Program from the Export-Import Bank of China. Remanding the case, Stanceu also held that Commerce failed again to consider all relevant record evidence in its decision to include subsidy rates to inputs of synthetic yarn and caustic soda in the CVD review.

Nearly 600 pages comprise two administrative record indexes, one “non-confidential,” the other “confidential,” filed April 30 with the Court of International Trade by government defendants in the massive Section 301 litigation challenging the lawfulness of the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. The roughly 3,600+ complaints seek to get the tariffs vacated and the duties refunded, alleging they run afoul of the 1974 Trade Act and violate 1946 Administrative Procedure Act protections against sloppy rulemakings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld a lower court decision that found the Commerce Department correctly applied adverse facts available to a Mexican exporter after it submitted corrected cost data without adequate information in an antidumping duty administrative review.

A company must be able to prove that prices weren't distorted for transactions involving non-market economies (NMEs) when claiming first sale treatment, the Department of Justice said in an April 29 Court of International Trade filing (Imperia Trading, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 15-00142). DOJ's argument relies on a recent CIT decision involving imported Meyer cookware that said the involvement of Chinese companies made it difficult to determine whether a transaction is affected by non-market influence (see 2104200075). DOJ made the filing as part of a dispute over whether Imperia Trading, an importer of apparel made in China, can use the sale from a Hong Kong middleman company for appraisement.

The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping case to the Commerce Department, finding that the agency's determination that wood flooring importer Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. was de facto controlled by the Chinese government lacked substantial evidence. Judge Richard Eaton, in the April 29 opinion, also found that Commerce's application of its non-market economy policy to Jilin did not clear the proper evidentiary standard, launching into an elongated discussion of the policy's original intent.

Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the Court of International Trade signed an administrative order April 28 that will automatically stay any new complaints filed in the massive Section 301 litigation before they are assigned to the three-judge panel he shares with Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. Any lawyer seeking to lift the stay of a new Section 301 case must first consult with the plaintiffs' steering committee at least three days before filing a motion and must show “good cause” for the exemption, the order said.

Five aluminum extrusion importers evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on goods from China by commingling shipments in the Dominican Republic, CBP said in a Jan. 28 determination notice posted by the agency April 27. The finding is a result of an investigation that began following a 2019 allegation from the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) that the companies were evading AD/CV orders A-570-967 and C-570-968. The importers are Florida Aluminum Extrusion, Classic Metals Supplies, Global Aluminum Inc., H&E Home, Industrias Feliciano Aluminum Inc. JL Trading Corp. and Puertas y Ventanas J.M., Inc.

Court of International Trade Chief Judge Mark Barnett suggested during an April 26 status conference that an automatic stay could be in order for all cases challenging Lists 3 and 4A of the Section 301 tariffs that are unassigned to the three-judge panel. The government defense and the 15-member steering committee representing the plaintiffs did not object. Under Barnett's suggested order, all new cases without assignment to the panel would automatically be stayed and would follow comparable procedures to other cases under the HMTX Industries and Jasco Products test case to lift the stay.

Steel importer Norca Industrial Company filed a challenge to an affirmative Enforce and Protect Act determination, claiming that CBP did not have a legal basis to initiate the investigation and violated its due process rights. In an April 27 complaint in the Court of International Trade, Norca made six claims against its EAPA investigation, including on the constitutionality of the process and whether CBP unfairly made adverse inferences against the company to determine that evasion took place (Norca Industrial Company LLC v. U.S., CIT # 21-00192).