The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 20 paperless order directed the U.S. to respond to an emergency motion from plaintiff Oman Fasteners in a suit challenging the validity of certain Section 232 steel and aluminum duties to comply with the court's most recent order. In April, the trade court ordered Oman Fasteners to make duty deposits for potential Section 232 steel and aluminum duty liability on all entries affected by its case (see 2204150053). The plaintiff previously requested that the court establish an escrow account throughout the stay period pending an appeal of the court's decision. A three-judge panel at the court was not convinced that setting up an escrow account is better than depositing estimated Section 232 duties for affected entries. With five months having gone by since the order, Oman Fasteners filed the confidential emergency motion to compel the U.S. to comply with the order. The court directed the U.S. to respond to the motion (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #20-00037).
CBP did not rely on "disallowed hearsay" when finding that Skyview Cabinet evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities and components thereof from China, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 19 reply brief. Responding to Skyview's arguments that CBP improperly relied on an affidavit and business confidential statements made by a corporate investigator, the government said that the importer has put forth no evidence questioning the truthfulness and credibility of the evidence and that the affidavits are not irrelevant to the evasion finding. CBP also did not solely rely on the information in the affidavit alone, the brief said (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).
The U.S. was wrong to argue that the Commerce Department does not need to satisfy any criteria when refusing to start a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review, plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products argued in a Sept. 19 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government ignored that both Commerce and the trade court have recognized the agency's practice of looking at whether the agency individually calculated the former company's subsidy rate to deny the successor-in-interest CCR, the plaintiff said (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 20 order denied a motion from John Liu and GL Paper Distribution, defendants in a Section 592 penalty case, to strike a portion of the complaint. Liu moved to toss elements of the complaint he deemed to not be relevant to the imports at issue. Judge Jane Restani ruled that striking these parts of the complaint would be "premature," since the matter of relevancy is a "question of evidence" and not meant to be subject to a motion to strike.
The Commerce Department violated the law by basing the margin for non-individually examined companies in an antidumping duty review only on a mandatory respondent with a zero rate, and not considering another mandatory respondent that got the China-wide rate for failing to cooperate, the American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (AMMWF) argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Even if the respondent does not cooperate, it remains an individually-examined company and must be used as part of the expected method for the non-individually examined respondents, AMMWF argued (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. United States, CIT #21-00595).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should allow the U.S. to double its word count in its reply brief in a case on President Donald Trump's move to revoke a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 15 brief at the appellate court. The government argued that good cause exists for their motion since it must reply to the issue of presidential authority raised by the appellees along with several alternative problems, and because the importance of the issues in question warrant an enlargement of the word count (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
The Commerce Department properly dropped its use of facts available over a South Korean port usage rights program in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled Sept. 19. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also found that because the result is a de minimis rate, reviewing whether the program is countervailable "would have no practical significance and is mooted," sustaining Commerce's remand results.
Brazilian airline GOL Linhas Aereas Inteligentes will pay over $41 million to settle criminal and civil investigations by DOJ, SEC and Brazilian authorities on bribery charges, DOJ announced in a Sept. 15 news release. DOJ and the airline entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement over charges that the company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; the airline agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $17 million.
Domestic companies party to an antidumping duty matter are incorrect to argue that the Commerce Department should continue finding that a particular market situation exists for a welded line pipe input, Commerce argued in Sept. 16 comments at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiff Nexteel Co. added that the defendant-intervenors' points are moot since they have not highlighted any error of fact or law made by the trade court in striking down Commerce's past rationale for its PMS finding. The statute also does not allow for a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, Nexteel and the U.S. said in rebuking the U.S. companies (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).
The Commerce Department erred by failing to reduce respondent Koehler Paper's constructed export price by interest accrued on unpaid antidumping duties, plaintiffs Domtar Corp. and Appvion argued in a Sept. 15 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce failed to explain why this unpaid interest should be added to the cost of production rather than taken from the CEP given that the agency has the authority to make needed adjustments to cost items that are treated as a CEP deduction and not just to cost items that are components of COP, the brief said (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00632).