The Court of International Trade on Aug. 11 upheld the Commerce Department's 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China in a confidential decision. Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until Aug. 18 to review the confidential information in the decision. In the case, exporter Yingli Energy argued that the trade court should strike down the Commerce Department's ordinary presumption that exporters in non-market economies are under foreign government control, urging the court to undertake a Loper Bright analysis of the AD statute (see 2506050001) (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. U.S, CIT # 24-00131).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 12 sent back the Commerce Department's 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea in a confidential decision. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Aug. 18 to review the confidential information in the decision. The suit was brought by exporter Hyundai Steel to contest Commerce's specificity finding regarding the provision of subsidized electricity (see 2505270004). Kelly previously remanded the review after finding that the agency didn't provide a "rational basis" for its de facto specificity finding (see 2412170041). Commerce initially said the Korean steel industry was one of four apparently unrelated industries out of 10 that, together, were the four biggest users of the off-peak electricity program. On remand, the agency switched its grouping to only three industries (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S, CIT # 23-00211).
Petitioners led by Insteel Wire Products Company argued Aug. 7 that the Commerce Department doesn’t need to change up its approach for circumvention inquiries on goods that undergo further processing in the United States rather than in a third country (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).
The Commerce Department on Aug. 11 clarified the basis it used for applying adverse facts available against respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon and steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reconsidered Saha Thai and BNK Steel Co.'s affiliation status and found that the two are affiliated based on AFA (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00627).
Conservative advocacy group New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a motion for judgment and opposed motions to stay and transfer its newest case, brought before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of outdoor cooking products maker FireDisc and other importers to challenge President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs (FIREDISC, Inc. v. Donald J. Trump, W.D. Tex. # 25-01134).
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 on Aug. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's selection of a surrogate financial statement and use of respondent Siam Metal Tech Co.'s invoice date as the date of sale for the respondent's U.S. sales in an antidumping duty proceeding. Sustaining the AD investigation on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand, Judge Mark Barnett also upheld the agency's reliance on respondents Bangkok Sheet Metal Public Co.'s and Siam Metal's actual costs that are recorded in their financial accounting systems for the total cost of manufacturing.
The Commerce Department properly included importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Aug. 12. Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes and Kara Stoll disagreed with the importer as to the ambiguity in the orders' scope and on whether its aluminum sheet falls outside the orders' scope, since it's heat-treated.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 13 held that seven different types of Target General Merchandise's LED lamps are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9405, which provides for lamps and lighting fittings "having a permanently fixed light source" not specified anywhere in the tariff schedule. Judge Lisa Wang said the LED lamps don't qualify for classification under heading 8543, since goods under chapter 85 are "generally limited to electrical lamps that are components within equipment, rather than those used independently in the home." The judge then said the products, which consist of "various string light models," specifically qualify for subheading 9405.30.00, which provides for lighting sets "of a kind used for Christmas trees."
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Aug. 5-7 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):