The Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government provided a countervailable subsidy via the provision of carbon emission permits to exporter Hyundai Steel violates the law, Hyundai argued in a July 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since the requirement to buy carbon emission permits places a cost on the company, and the Korean government didn't forgo revenue by providing an additional permit allocation to Hyundai, the provision of the permits doesn't constitute a countervailable benefit, the complaint said (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT #22-00170).
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted to CBP's website July 6-7, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADD CVD Search page.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register July 7 on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department on July 7 released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on glycine from Japan (A-588-878). In the final results of this review, Commerce will set assessment rates for subject merchandise from the one company remaining under review entered June 2020 through May 2021.
The Commerce Department July 7 released preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy (A-475-838). The agency preliminarily calculated a zero percent AD rate for Dalmine S.p.A. If the agency's finding is continued in the final results, importers of subject merchandise from Dalmine entered June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2021, will not be assessed AD duties, and future entries from Dalmine will not be subject to an AD cash deposit requirement until further notice. Any changes to rates for Dalmine would take effect on the date of Federal Register publication of the final results of this review.
The Commerce Department on July 7 released the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on certain quartz surface products from India (A-533-889). In the final results of this review, Commerce will set assessment rates for subject merchandise from the 53 companies remaining under review entered Dec. 13, 2019, through May 31, 2021.
The Commerce Department on July 7 released the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on kegs from China (A-570-093). These final results will be used to set final assessments of AD duties on importers for subject merchandise entered Dec. 13, 2019, through Nov. 30, 2020.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 7 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade in a July 6 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to grant a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. (Prolamsa). Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the LOT adjustment that Commerce made following the judge's initial remand order. The court ruled that petitioner Nucor Tubular Products' arguments that the higher selling expenses for one avenue of Prolamsa's trade were due to higher manufacturing costs and not higher selling expenses were "entirely speculative, if not illogical."
The Biden administration urged a court Friday not to grant expedited discovery to Missouri and Louisiana in their suit claiming the administration colluded with social media platforms to censor and suppress truthful information (see 2205050056). In its response at the U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana (case 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM), the administration said it plans to file a motion to dismiss. Don't allow states to take discovery before defendants can respond to the complaint, it said. "The Court must first address whether it has jurisdiction before this matter may proceed at all. … Expedited discovery is rare, and is authorized only when a party shows that it has a pressing need.” States “make little effort to show that they will suffer irreparable harm (or in fact any harm) absent expedited discovery.” It would go against federal civil procedure rules to require the U.S. defendants "to respond to an unspecified number of interrogatories and document requests, and potentially prepare for depositions, on a compressed timeline,” it said. Missouri and Louisiana seek a "a sweeping preliminary injunction that would have the perverse effect of suppressing public officials’ speech on matters of public concern,” and multiple courts including the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed similar claims “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the administration said. “Although social media companies have been taking action against what they have deemed to be misinformation for years -- since before this Administration began,” plaintiffs here and in other cases insist “that the actions they were subject to were attributable … to certain comments made by Government officials about the harms of misinformation.” But courts “uniformly dismissed those challenges, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their allegations did not show that the challenged actions were caused by any Government actor rather than the independent judgments of social media companies.”