The Commerce Department reasonably hit countervailing duty respondent Uttam Galva Steels Limited with adverse facts available over its failure to reveal its affiliation with a cross-owned producer of the subject merchandise, Lloyds Steel Industries Limited, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 reply brief. Since Uttam Galva only admitted to affiliation with LSIL after prodding from Commerce, the respondent failed to have cooperated to the best of its ability, justifying the use of AFA, DOJ said (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).
The Department of Justice backed the Commerce Department's decision to hit antidumping duty review respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group with the China-wide dumping rate despite its full cooperation in the review, in a Jan. 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that after looking at Jinqiao Flooring's ownership makeup, the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of government control and that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld Commerce's bid to use an adverse facts available rate for a separate rate respondent despite its full cooperation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S. , CIT #18-00191).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will conduct all scheduled arguments for the February 2022 session by videoconference, the court said in a Jan. 18 notice. However, only arguing counsel will have access to the video call, while the general public may only livestream the argument's audio. No motions for access beyond arguing counsel will be entertained, the court said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Department of Justice will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a November 2021 Court of International Trade decision striking down the Trump administration's withdrawal of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, according to a Jan. 14 notice of appeal. In the opinion, the trade court struck down the exclusion rescission since the law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding on small vertical shaft engines from China, Briggs & Stratton said in a Jan. 14 brief. Responding to plaintiff MTD Products, which argued that COVID-19 manufacturing complications distorted both the timing and the volume of imports over the post-petition period (see 2106010058), Briggs & Stratton said that the ITC took into account the timing and volume of the imports and any rapid upticks in inventories of the imports when making its decision (MTD Products Inc v. United States, CIT #21-00264).
PrimeSource Building Products distinguished a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision affirming the Commerce Department's ability to use adverse facts available in its separate rate calculation from its case at issue at the Court of International Trade. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority to rival the one submitted by the antidumping petitioner, PrimeSource said that the recent Federal Circuit opinion in Bosun Tools v. U.S. is not applicable to its case since the appellate court noted an increasing trend in past rates calculated for one of the separate rate respondents that justified the use of AFA. No such trend exists in PrimeSource's case, the brief said.
Puerto Rican importer Ricardo Cruz Distributors told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 13 complaint that CBP imposed the wrong countervailing duty rate on an entry of its tires since the seller of the tires was given an individual CVD rate in the past. The exporter of the tires at issue was Chinese manufacturer Tyrechamp, which was given an individual CVD rate of 15.56% in 2016. The company admitted to placing the wrong company name under the "Manufacturer ID" section in one of its forms to CBP, but still argues that the lower rate should nonetheless be applied (Ricardo Cruz Distributors Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00006).
A European Union law holding that entities cannot comply with the requirements in the laws of a third country applies even in the absence of an order to comply with the third country's laws, the European Court of Justice said in a December 2021 judgment. However, an EU company can terminate contracts with a person or entity subject to U.S. sanctions without giving reasons for such termination or without authorization from the European Commission, a summary of the judgment said. But, the European high court said the burden of proof is on the party terminating the contract to show it nixed the contract for a reason other than compliance with the third country laws.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: