The U.S. moved for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act contest at the Court of International Trade after CBP found that a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department was needed after a voluntary remand request to reconsider its affirmative evasion finding (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., supports a group of mattress exporters' Court of International Trade case contesting an antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam, the exporters said in an April 25 notice of supplemental authority. In Mid Continent, the Federal Circuit remanded the Commerce Department's decision to use a simple average to calculate the pooled standard deviation when using the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis to target "masked dumping" (see 2204210031). The mattress exporters, led by Ashley Furniture Industries, seek to piggyback on this decision, arguing that it confirms their position that "the use of simple-average standard deviation rather than weighted-average or population standard deviation represents an unreasonable departure from the original intent of the developers of the Cohen’s d formula" (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).
The Commerce Department continued to deny two groups of plaintiffs in an antidumping case -- led by Guizhou Tyre Co. and Double Coin Holdings -- separate rate status, finding on remand ordered by the Court of International Trade that the companies still failed to rebut the presumption of Chinese government control. Commerce said that Guizhou Tyre and Double Coin are not free from government control regarding how they pick their management and thus are under government control for the purposes of the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00031).
A good faith disagreement over the scope of antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders cannot be construed as a "material and false statement," needed to find evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act, importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. argued in an April 26 brief at the Court of International Trade. As such, CBP's evasion finding is illegal, as it fails to make a proper finding of evasion, the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S.'s opposition to a rehearing motion from a Chinese aluminum extrusion exporter and its affiliates over their alternative arguments in a countervailing duty case falls flat, the company and its affiliates said in an April 25 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00009). DOJ argued against the rehearing bid, claiming that the alternative claims were waived since they were not brought up during remand. The plaintiff-intervenors, all associated with Jangho Group, replied that the court said it would address a separate issue first, then move to the alternate claims. The court's failure to do so warrants a rehearing, the brief said.
Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corp. wants a full court rehearing over a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that found reasonable the Commerce Department's practice of capping freight revenue when calculating U.S. price. Filing a motion for rehearing on April 25, SeAH said that the statute is not ambiguous on when U.S. price may be adjusted for freight costs seeing as it does not permit any adjustments for freight cost when the starting price does not include freight (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, CAFC # 21-1334)
The Commerce Department properly modified the scope of its antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from China in response to evidence of evasion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an April 25 opinion. Building materials company Bruskin International argued against Commerce's decision to accept the petitioner's scope request, telling the court the agency should have treated it as a request to amend the petition. But Judges Todd Hughes, Haldane Mayer and Kara Stoll ruled that Commerce was not bound to the preliminary scope and that it properly found the scope to be defective due to evidence of evasion.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: