The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.'s counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as moot. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim, which sought to reclassify imported cables.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A recent Court of International Trade opinion finding that the Commerce Department appropriately rejected untimely filed questionnaire responses and extension requests is relevant for antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co.'s case, the petitioner said in a July 19 notice of supplemental authority (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. v. United States, CIT #21-00587). In the recent decision in the Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S. case, the court said Commerce properly rejected the hour and 41 minutes-late submissions (see 2207150035). The plaintiffs said that technical difficulties and COVID-19 issues resulted in the late filings, but the court said Commerce did not abuse its discretion in denying the submissions since the plaintiffs' "experienced counsel" should have requested an extension earlier.
The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade found that there was insufficient evidence to deny antidumping respondent Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited's (ZASF) Vietnam sales for use in calculating normal value. In the AD case, Commerce rejected ZASF's third-country sales to Vietnam for allegedly ending up in the U.S. to evade the relevant AD order -- this position was sent back by the trade court. On remand, the agency used the Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value, ending on a 1.73% dumping rate for ZASF (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00031).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a July 19 opinion denied Hong Kong-based apparel company Changji Esquel Textile's (CJE) bid for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, calling it "a Hail Mary pass." Judges Judith Rogers, Patricia Millett and Gregory Katsas held that CJE's claims that human rights violations are not proper grounds to be placed on the Entity List are not likely to succeed, upholding the district court's ruling saying the same thing.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 letter invited the U.S. and defendants-appellants Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Hyundai Corp. to file a response to a panel rehearing petition in an antidumping duty case. Originally brought by Hitachi Energy USA, the case concerns the administrative review of the AD order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly hit respondent HHI with adverse facts available over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said HHI has the right to supplement the record and Commerce cannot claim the company didn't act to the best of its ability in the review since it fully responded to Commerce's requests for further information (see 2205240028). Hitachi then filed for a rehearing, and the court invited the U.S., HHI and Hyundai Corp. to respond since they have yet to file a reply (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).
The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade flipped its positions on whether a particular market situation adjustment distorts the cost of production of a welded line pipe input and whether an adjustment should be made to antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s constructed value for sales of non-prime goods. The agency conformed to the trade court's ruling, finding a PMS doesn't exist and recalculating CVD without the non-prime goods adjustment, leaving respondents Nexteel and SeAH Steel Corp. with 1.12% and zero percent dumping rates, respectively. However, the agency stuck by its decision to reclassify Nexteel's reported losses over its suspended production lines (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).
The Commerce Department properly used the expected method to set the non-selected respondents rate in an antidumping duty case by weight-averaging two adverse facts available rates and a zero percent margin, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 15 opinion. Issuing the ruling following three remands, Judge Mark Barnett said that the plaintiffs, led by Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, did not present enough evidence to show that the mandatory respondents rates were not representative of the non-selected respondents' dumping margins.
The Commerce Department failed to show that it held a fair comparison between the constructed export price for three affiliated steel pipe producers and their home market price, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 15 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that Commerce did not discuss how a fair comparison was reached in light of evidence showing two levels of trade in the home market, nor did the agency analyze detracting evidence placed on the record by the plaintiffs, led by Universal Tube and Plastic Industries.