The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a particular market situation affected inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea in remand results submitted on Oct. 24 to the Court of International Trade. Submitting the remand redetermination after a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling, Commerce did say that it still believes imports of low-priced Chinese steel could contribute to the existence of a PMS and that, based on the Federal Circuit's ruling, it could in the future defend a PMS finding solely on this ground. The result of the remand left the dumping margins unchanged (Nexteel Co. v. United States, CIT #18-00083).
The Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d statistical test to carry out its differential pricing analysis in rooting out "masked" dumping violates "well-recognized statistical principles," plaintiff HiSteel Co. argued in an Oct. 17 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's assertions that certain statistical assumptions typically required of the d test are not relevant since it using the entire population of data and not just a sample "is mathematically dishonest," the brief said (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).
CBP's denial of plaintiff-appellant Borusan Mannesmann's post summary corrections (PSCs) and administrative refund request constitutes a protestable decision, meaning Borusan had jurisdiction to seek Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions, Borusan and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline argued in an Oct. 17 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that Federal Circuit precedent established that CBP's denial of a timely request for a refund of previously paid duties can constitute a protestable decision, and while these precedential opinions do not concern unliquidated entries as is the case with Borusan, there is nothing limiting these decisions (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not stay a case led by PrimeSource Building Products pending resolution of another action at the appellate court, the U.S. said in an Oct. 17 reply brief, arguing a stay is "based on nothing but pure speculation as to" PrimeSource's desired outcome of the separate matter. The "unjustifiable delay" that would stem from the stay would cause "inherent harm" to the government, so the stay should be denied, the U.S. said (PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department cannot countervail glass purchases since both the Court of International Trade and Commerce have found that glass subsidies are not aluminum extrusions inputs, countervailing duty review respondent Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. argued in its Oct. 3 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Jangho also argued that CIT illegally allowed Commerce to make a post hoc rationalization as a basis for the finding to countervail glass subsidies (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. 22-2000).
The U.S. plans to file a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an opinion finding that the Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review. The Federal Circuit granted an order on Oct. 5 giving the government 60 more days to file the rehearing motion. In the case, originally brought by YC Rubber Co., the Federal Circuit said that Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent cuts against the statute's unambiguous language (see 2208290026). The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. 21-1489).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 3 order gave the U.S. an additional 4,000 words for its reply brief in a spat over whether the president can revoke a safeguard exemption granted for bifacial solar panels. The government originally sought to double its word count to 14,000, though the appellees in the matter, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, proposed to limit the bid to 11,000 (see 2209190057). Judge Jimmie Reyna sided with the appellees (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Oct. 3 in a case on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value. In the Federal Circuit's August opinion, the appeals court cited its previous rejection of the appellants' claims in the Hyundai Steel v. U.S. case. In the present action, the appellants, led by American Cast Iron Pipe, sought to differentiate its case from Hyundai Steel by arguing they are appealing an original investigation while the Hyundai Steel action challenged an administrative review. The Federal Circuit said this does not result in a different outcome (see 2208260040) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1502).
The Court of International Trade erroneously upheld the Commerce Department's finding that an Australian exporter did not reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and subsequent decision not to deduct the amount of the duties from the exporter's U.S. price, United States Steel Corp. argued in a Sept. 30 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2078).