A recent Court of International decision in a countervailing duty case is relevant to a case brought by The Mosaic Co. over the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Mexico, CVD respondent OCP told the Court of International Trade. The decision in the past case, also brought by Mosaic, said Commerce reasonably excluded freight, import duties and value-added tax from the tier-three benchmark price for phosphate rock (see 2209020061) (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00116).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's determination that the South Korean government's provision of port usage rights constitutes a countervailable benefit, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 15 reply brief. Responding to respondent Hyundai Steel, Commerce said, contrary to what the company says, there is no evidence to show that the period of port usage for which Hyundai does not pay fees was specifically calculated to match the costs incurred by Hyundai for building the port (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).
The omission of certain documents related to service-related revenues (SRRs) in an antidumping review does not warrant the use of total adverse facts available, respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems argued in a Sept. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Nor does the respondent's failure to report a sale of a large power transformer that the Commerce Department believed was made in South Korea, Hyundai said in vying for partial AFA (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00108).
The Commerce Department properly found that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy via the provision of electricity below cost, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 12 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case's second visit to the appellate court. Replying to countervailing duty petitioner and plaintiff-appellant Nucor Corp., the government said that it carried out a lawful "Tier 3" less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis, looking at whether the Korean government sets its tariffs pursuant to market principles, and that it did not violate the Federal Circuit's prior ruling in the case since it did not undertake a preferentiality analysis. Nucor ignored the "lion's share of Commerce's actual determination," when arguing that the agency did carry out a preferentiality analysis, the brief said (POSCO v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1525).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer Katana Racing Could Not Revoke of Statute of Limitations, US Tells CAFC in Unpaid Duty Case
The Court of International Trade was wrong to dismiss the government's case against importer Katana Racing seeking to collect over $5.7 million in unpaid duties due to an expired statute of limitations, the U.S. argued in its Sept. 13 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government's suit was in fact timely filed since Katana could not revoke its waiver of the statute of limitations, the brief said. The U.S. said no law backs the finding that such a waiver could be revoked and stop the government from filing suit for unpaid duties, and that the trade court's ruling "leads to absurd results" (U.S. v. Katana Racing, Fed. Cir. #22-1832).
The Commerce Department properly found that a particular EU subsidy to Spanish olive growers was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 14 opinion. After previously remanding the case twice, Judge Gary Katzmann this time bought Commerce's rationale for its de facto specificity finding, along with the agency's conclusion that demand for ripe olives -- the subject merchandise -- was substantially dependent on the demand for certain raw olive varietals.
The Court of International Trade, in a departure from a string of past rulings, said in a Sept. 13 opinion that the Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available over China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty case. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that Commerce "reasonably explained" why it needed key information from the Chinese government, which wasn't provided, to determine whether the CVD respondents and their U.S. customers used the EBCP. Otherwise, the attempt at verification "amounted to 'looking for a needle in a haystack with the added uncertainty that Commerce might not even be able to identify the needle when it was found,'" the judge said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs Reserve Right to Oppose US' Inadvertent Liquidations in Solar Panel Tariff Exclusion Case
Plaintiffs in a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels reserved all their rights to the extent that the plaintiffs are affected by the U.S.'s inadvertent liquidations of the entries at issue in the action, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 13 reply brief. The reserved rights include, but are not limited to, "opposing the Government’s actions and legal authority to void liquidations without court approval and without providing specificity that would allow for meaningful comment, the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).