CAFC Reverses CIT on AD/CVD Circumvention by Already Existing Merchandise
Products may be circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties even if they aren’t named in the original scope of an AD/CVD order and were available in another country at the time the order was issued, the Court of Appeals for the…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Federal Circuit recently ruled. Overturning a 2013 ruling by the Court of International Trade (see 13102804), the Federal Circuit’s April 5 opinion (here) held that 4.75mm diameter steel wire rod from Deacero is circumventing duties on steel wire rod from Mexico, despite the fact that the scope of the AD duty order is limited to rods 5mm to 19mm in diameter and 4.75mm wire rod was commercially available in Japan at the time the scope was written in 2002. Circumvention inquiries are meant to capture products that may not be named in the scope, and only specifically excluded products cannot be found to be circumventing, said CAFC. Although the 4.75mm wire rod was available in Japan, the smallest diameter available in the countries investigated in 2002 was 5.5mm, it said. “That some quantity of small-diameter steel wire rod may have been in existence at some time in non-investigated countries does not limit Commerce’s" circumvention analysis, said the appeals court as it reinstated the Commerce Department's original finding of circumvention.