The Commerce Department misapplied the four factors used in determining whether companies are de facto controlled by a foreign government in finding exporter Guizhou Tyre was controlled by the Chinese state in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China, the exporter argued. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Guizhou Tyre said that Commerce improperly used its government control analysis for firms majority owned by a state-owned enterprise in finding it failed to rebut the presumption of state control, since the exporter is only minority owned by an SOE (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2165).
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 4 opinion sustained the Court of International Trade's ruling upholding the Commerce Department's 2018 antidumping review of circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand. During litigation on the review, the agency removed a particular market situation adjustment it initially made to respondents Saha Thai Steel and Thai Premium Pipe's costs of production to determine normal value as part of the sales-below-cost test. Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment after the Federal Circuit's ruling in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., which made the adjustment illegal. Petitioner Wheatland Tube attempted to distinguish the present case from Hyundai Steel by claiming the PMS adjustment was a constructed value calculation. The court disagreed, saying Hyundai Steel is controlling.
Amendments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules took effect Dec. 1. The court amended Forms 6a and 24, adding that the amended forms will be required for any filings made on or after Dec. 1, a court notice said. Form 24 "satisfies the Bill of Costs form requirementsa" under Federal Circuit Rule 39(b), while Form 6A "satisfies the requirement for incarcerated movants to file a supplemental form for prisoners," under CAFC Rule 24(b).
The Commerce Department ignored its own framework for "linking evidentiary findings to conduct" relevant to antidumping proceedings and perverted the "rebuttable" presumption of state control," exporters Double Coin Holdings and China Manufacturers Alliance argued in their opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 28. The pair challenged Commerce's finding that Double Coin didn't rebut the presumption of Chinese state control in a review on off-the-road tires from China, saddling the firm with the 105.31% China-wide rate (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).
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.
All of Judge Pauline Newman's claims against her colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's investigation of her fitness to continue serving on the bench are "straightforwardly dismissed," judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto said in a reply brief supporting their motion to dismiss the case (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The Court of International Trade properly said that importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods frozen fruit mixture entries are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80 as "Fruit ... frozen," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 21 reply brief. The trade court "committed no legal error in interpreting" the terms "fruit," "other" and "food preparations" since the terms are defined by "dictionaries, Explanatory Notes, and legal standards" set by the Federal Circuit and other courts, the government said (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "unequivocally held" that the Commerce Department could deduct Section 232 national security duties from U.S. price in antidumping duty cases, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 17 supplemental brief at the Court of International Trade.
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 Court of International Trade in a Nov. 20 opinion granted the motion from a group of Canadian exporters to reinstate their exclusion from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT ruling that overturned an expedited review that excluded them from the duties. The court also made the exclusion of the exporters effective back to August 2021, when the companies were first subjected to the order.