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.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
Commerce misconstrued its own regulations when it ordered CBP to liquidate entries of Goodluck India's cold drawn mechanical tubing from India at a 33.7% adverse facts available antidumping duty rate derived from a subsequent court decision, rather than the zero percent rate that was actually in effect at the time of entry, the company said in a May 15 brief at the Court of International Trade (Goodluck India v. U.S., CIT # 22-00024).
A company unable to prove it has any entries for the purposes of obtaining a separate rate should not automatically be found to have no shipments and be rescinded from the review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a May 19 opinion. Though the appellate court found the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries unconvincing, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Linn and Raymond Chen said that Ningbo Qixin did not clear the bar for establishing no shipments, even though Commerce had rejected a separate rate for the company because it couldn't verify any entries.
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in an antidumping duty proceeding. Judge Jane Restani said the issue had already been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Commerce. The judge's one-page opinion on the 2018-19 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey is identical to two of the court's orders issued prior, concluding similar suits also brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann on the 2019-20 and 2020-21 reviews of the AD order (see 2305160037) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00132).
A company unable to prove it has any entries for the purposes of obtaining a separate rate should not automatically be found to have no shipments and be rescinded from the review, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a May 19 opinion. Though the appellate court found the government's claim that it is not required to rescind a review for a company with no entries unconvincing, Judges Timothy Dyk, Richard Linn and Raymond Chen said that Ninhbo Qixin did not clear the bar for establishing no shipments, even though Commerce had rejected a separate rate for the company because it couldn't verify any entries.
The Commerce Department failed to rely on the best available information when setting surrogate values for antidumping duty respondent Risen Energy Co.'s backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) inputs in the AD administrative review on solar cells from China in 2017-18, Risen argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Risen also challenged the Commerce's calculation of the company's financial ratios (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered Judge Pauline Newman to not publicly disclose the names of witnesses in the court's ongoing investigation on whether the judge is fit to continue serving on the bench. Releasing the order publicly along with all other court orders and letters in the probe, per Newman's request, the appellate court said that Newman and her counsel remain bound by the court's confidentiality order in the investigation regarding future orders and filings.
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in an antidumping duty proceeding. Judge Jane Restani said the issue had already been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Commerce. The judge's one-page opinion on the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey is identical to the court's order two days prior, concluding a similar suit also brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann on the 2020-21 review of the AD order (see 2305160037) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 22-00057).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the antidumping duty administrative review on standard pipe from Turkey for 2020-21 after the issue in the case brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret was resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court ruled that Commerce can legally deduct President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in AD proceedings (see 2303150035). Borusan had raised the issue in a separate case at CIT (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00005).
The Court of International Trade should not again remand an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany because respondent Ellwood City Forge failed to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding the margin program before it filed suit at CIT, intervenor Edelstahl Siegen said in its May 15 remand comments (Ellwood City Forge v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).