The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's decision not to conduct an on-site verification in an antidumping review, the Department of Justice told the trade court in a Dec. 17 brief. Defending the COVID-era practice in yet another case, DOJ said that the plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Company, failed to raise the issue of on-site verification to Commerce during the proceeding, and that even if the court were to consider this challenge, the off-site verification procedures were consistent with the law and necessary, given the pandemic (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).
Court of International Trade activity
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 again remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in the antidumping duty investigation of steel nails from Oman. The second remand results had been filed in response to a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that said Commerce didn't adequately explain its reliance on a financial statement from Hitech Fastener Manufacturer (Thailand) Co. -- a third-country company -- to calculate constructed-value profit since Commerce didn't adequately consider whether Hitech had received countervailable subsidies. CIT Judge Mark Barnett found Commerce's decision to stick with Hitech's financial statement wasn't in compliance with the Federal Circuit.
The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Taiwan in a Dec. 23 opinion. The plaintiff, Power Steel Co. argued that Commerce can't deduct Section 232 duties from the U.S. export price and that the agency was wrong to find that Power Steel paid Section 232 duties for all its U.S. sales. While Judge Jane Restani upheld Commerce's Section 232 deduction, the judge told the agency to reconsider whether record evidence shows that Power Steel did not pay Section 232 duties for some of its entries.
The Commerce Department found that importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges are not subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, in Dec. 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, though it did so under protest (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).
Richard Cunningham, a long-time Steptoe & Johnson trade lawyer, died at 79, his firm announced. Cunningham spent his entire career of over 50 years at Steptoe, where he handled "some of the most significant U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty cases over the past 50 years," including as lead on the firm's team in a successful Supreme Court case in 2009, Steptoe said. He also helped to launch the careers of many international trade lawyers at Steptoe and others in the trade bar, the firm said. "Dick was a fantastic mentor," said Eric Emerson, co-head of Steptoe's International Trade and Regulatory Group. "Dick is the best international trade lawyer that I ever saw," said Gary N. Horlick, former head of Import Administration at the Commerce Department and prior to that a lawyer with Steptoe. "He'd get this glint in his eye when he knew what it would take for his client to win -- and when you saw it, you knew you were about to hear something wonderful."
Importer TR International Trading Company's imports of citric acid anhydrous is not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid from China, and CBP was wrong to liquidate the entries as such, TRI said in a Dec. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeking to get the court to rule against CBP's decision to liquidate its entries as being from China and not from India, TRI also blasted a Customs Laboratory's role in the process (TR International Trading Company v. United States, CIT #19-00217).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department continued to find in Dec. 21 remand results submitted to the Court of International trade that certain flanges are subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. Holding that the flanges from Crane Resistoflex have the physical characteristics described in the scope's first paragraph, the agency again defended its position that Crane's flanges are within the scope of the order. In line with CIT's instructions, though, Commerce also dropped its arguments defending its scope decision using the AD petition, ITC report and past scope determinations (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).
The plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors in an antidumping case are appealing the Court of International Trade's decision to uphold the Commerce Department's surrogate pick, the litigants said in a Dec. 21 notice of appeal. In an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, Commerce picked Malaysia as the primary surrogate despite still using a Romanian company's financial statements to determine the surrogate financial ratios (see 2110250027). The court also upheld the agency's surrogate value selection for bituminous coal, an input of activated carbon, and Commerce's financial ratio calculations. The case will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The plaintiffs, Carbon Activated Tianjin, Carbon Activated Corporation and Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon, along with plaintiff-intervenors Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon, Ningxia Mineral & Chemical and Shanxi Sincere Industrial, are appealing the case (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. U.S., CIT #20-00007).
The Court of International Trade should reject exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s argument that the Commerce Department's calculation of financial ratios in an antidumping duty investigation is inconsistent with the agency's practice, defendant-intervenor American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance said in a Dec. 21 brief. In the reply to Ancientree's comments on Commerce's remand results, the AKCA also said Ancientree's argument against the accuracy of Commerce's financial ratio calculation is meritless because using more line items doesn't always result in more accuracy (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00114).