After oral arguments regarding a Cambodian mattress exporter’s antidumping duty rate, the exporter, the U.S. and petitioners filed post-argument submissions Feb. 7 that focused on the Commerce Department's use of nonmarket economy data in a market economy case (Best Mattresses International v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00281).
Chinese exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. on Feb. 5 filed its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, contesting the surrogate data used by the Commerce Department in the agency's 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 31 remanded for a third time the Commerce Department's use of Mexican wage data to calculate surrogate labor costs in the antidumping duty investigation on beer kegs from China. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce abused its discretion in rejecting Brazilian data, favored by petitioner American Keg, and continuing to use Mexican International Labour Organization data.
Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif heard oral argument Jan. 18 in a case concerning the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Vietnam. Parties discussed the Commerce Department’s reliance on incomplete records and public access to a surrogate’s financial information (Ashley Furniture Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00283).
The U.S. defended its use of Malaysian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 to value antidumping duty respondents' carbonized material over basket category 4402.90, telling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it permissibly selected the more specific heading as part of an AD review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).
The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit has consistently permitted the Commerce Department's use of its non-market economy policy in antidumping cases, the U.S. told the appellate court in a Jan. 18 opening brief. Appealing a Court of International Trade decision calling into question the NME policy, the government argued that "Congress has afforded Commerce wide latitude in how it enforces and implements" the AD statute and "this Court has consistently sustained Commerce's exercise of this discretion, in the absence of unambiguous statutory direction" (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
Tire exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. asked for 6,000 more words for their opening brief after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected their bid to submit two separate briefs. The companies noted that they received the government's consent and there's "good cause" to expand the word count (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).