While antidumping duty respondent Goodluck India Limited does not oppose DOJ's motion to partially dismiss its case, it wants the Court of International Trade to find jurisdiction for its case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Responding to the partial dismissal motion in an April 22 reply brief, Goodluck used the opportunity to also characterize the U.S. government's statement of facts as "inaccurate" (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00024).
The Court of International Trade should not grant a stay in a consolidated antidumping matter pending resolution of a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since the impact of this case is "speculative at best," DOJ said in an April 21 reply brief. Further, the stay should be denied since the Federal Circuit case, Stupp Corp. v. United States, may only affect two legal issues in the case led by exporter Koehler Paper, leaving six issues unaffected, DOJ argued (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00632).
Producing a large volume of evidence does not establish the relevance or persuasiveness of such evidence, plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in an April 19 brief blasting the Commerce Department's evidentiary record in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty exclusion case. Merely handing over a list of record information does not substitute for an explanation of how the evidence supports the exclusion finding, AEFTC said (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00253).
The defendant-intervenors in an antidumping duty case, Insteel Wire Products Co., Sumiden Wire Products Corp. and Wire Mesh Corp., signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results at the Court of International Trade applying partial adverse facts available. The remand results accepted certain of Turkish exporter Celik Halat's questionnaire responses that it originally denied due to being filed 21 minutes late. The result dropped Commerce's use of total AFA to partial AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. United States, CIT #21-00045).
International law firm Latham & Watkins moved to withdraw as counsel for Russian bank VTB Bank in a case over attacks that brought down a commercial airplane over Ukraine in 2014, seeing as the firm "is in the process of ending its engagement with VTB on multiple matters." Concurrently filing a letter to Judge Gabriel Gorenstein at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District for New York, Latham's Christopher Harris said that he wanted a stay of discovery until new counsel can be found for VTB (Schansman, et al. v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC, S.D.N.Y. #19-02985).
The Commerce Department erred in its de jure and de facto specificity findings in a forged steel fluid end blocks countervailing duty case on climate change compliance programs from the German government and the EU, exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen argued in an April 20 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The agency did not prove that the alleged subsidies were expressly limited to an enterprise or industry, precluding a de jure specificity finding, the brief said (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GMBH v. United States, CIT #21-00080).
The Commerce Department must reconsider its 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," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an April 21 opinion. Ruling that Commerce strayed from the statistical literature without a proper explanation, Judges Pauline Newman, Alan Lourie and Richard Taranto said the agency should reconsider whether a weighted average for calculating the Cohen's d denominator is more appropriate.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. failed to rebut plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann's motion that no substantial question remains regarding Wheatland's appeal of an antidumping duty case related to a particular market adjustment, Borusan said in an April 20 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Since the Federal Circuit in a separate case found that particular market situation adjustments cannot be made to the sales-below-cost test, the issue is "completed," so the court should affirm Borusan's motion for summary affirmance, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2097).
The Commerce Department illegally assigned an adverse facts available rate to mandatory respondent East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company in an antidumping duty review since the company stopped participating in the review, exporter Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company said in its April 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as Green Farms' separate rate was found via a simple average of the AFA rate and the other respondent's "zero" rate, this separate rate should also be found to be illegally based on AFA as it does not accurately reflect Green Farms' dumping level, the brief said (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT #22-00092).