Court of International Trade

Plaintiffs in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, led by Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in Aug. 11 comments, finding them in accordance with the CIT's instructions. The case stems from an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Following multiple court decisions and remand results (see 2107130080), Fine Furniture's case was stayed pending the results of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision which eventually found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping duty order. Since the mandatory respondents in the underlying AD order received de minimis duty rates in Commerce's final determination, Fine Furniture was removed from the review. This led to the AD rate for all separate rate respondents falling to zero percent (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #14-00135).

Plaintiffs, led by American Pacific Plywood, that stand accused of evading antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China vigorously challenged CBP's finding of evasion, in an Aug. 5 brief backing their motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. In another case going after CBP's alleged violations of due process in Enforce and Protect Act investigations (see 2107010085), the plaintiffs argued that CBP's missteps are not merely procedural mistakes, but rather a "failure of essential process that led to profound harm." The violations are so egregious that they "would be unacceptable in any country that prides itself on democratic process -- and for the United States, they are a travesty," the brief said (American Pacific Plywood, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03914).

The Commerce Department correctly relied on data from Xeneta XS over Maersk Line when calculating the respondent's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 10 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly sustained the remand results after twice remanding them, finding substantial evidence backing the second redetermination.

Building Material Distributors, Inc., consolidated plaintiff in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, will appeal the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to an Aug. 9 notice of appeal (Xi'An Metals & Minerals Import & Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00103). The case was over the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from China in which the Commerce Department applied total adverse facts available. BMD will appeal CIT's contention that Commerce had the right to apply total AFA for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production data on a control number-specific basis (see 2106090048).

The Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty investigation did not comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion, plaintiff Nucor Corporation said in Aug. 6 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The remand results "articulate but don't properly apply a standard that would comply with the statutory adequate remuneration standard," Nucor said, opposing Commerce's finding that the South Korean government did not provide a subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel via cheap electricity (POSCO v. United States, CIT #17-00137).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in an antidumping review, finding that the agency properly relied on data from Xeneta XS rather than Maersk Line when calculating the respondent's surrogate ocean freight expenses in an Aug. 10 opinion. The case came from the fourth administrative review of the antidumping order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China. Twice before, Judge Claire Kelly raised concerns over Commerce's initial selection of Maersk for the surrogate freight expenses.

The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s motion for remand in an antidumping case since it is unclear whether the court has the authority, plaintiff Pirelli Tyre Co. said in an Aug. 9 brief. Since the proposed reasoning for the voluntary remand revolves around the conduct of a company not party to the case, the court may not have the legal authority to issue such a remand, Pirelli said. Even with such authority, the remand should not be permitted since it is not necessary to achieve the U.S.'s objective and would harm Pirelli's interests, the plaintiff said (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-00115).

The Commerce Department must further explain its departure from the expected method in calculating the non-individually examined respondents rate in an antidumping review, the Court of International Trade said in an July 30 opinion made public on Aug. 6. Chief Judge Mark Barnett, issuing his third opinion in the case, partially remanded the case yet again, but did sustain Commerce's corroboration of the petition rate for mandatory respondent Unicatch based on individual transactions.

The U.S. government will appeal a Court of International Trade decision striking down the expansion of Section 232 national security tariffs to cover steel "derivatives" products to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to an Aug. 7 notice of appeal. The decision, in a case brought by Oman Fasteners, found that the president illicitly announced the tariff expansion after a procedurally required 105-day deadline laid out in the Section 232 statute (see 2106110022). The decision in Oman Fasteners came after the court had already found the tariff expansion to be illegal. That case, PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. U.S., is already making its way through the Federal Circuit (see 2106170058) (Oman Fasteners, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00037).

The Court of International Trade granted on Aug. 6 a consent motion to stay in a case brought by World Wide Packaging in which the company challenged CBP's appraisal of its imports of plastic tubes and caps from China based on the post-importation sale to its downstream U.S. customers. In its motion to stay, World Wide Packaging urged the court to grant its request following a meeting between counsel for the plaintiff and the Department of Justice. "Over the past week, counsel to Plaintiff and Defendant have discussed whether this appeal is susceptible to a stipulated judgment," the motion said. "The parties have agreed to continue these discussions in the weeks ahead. Plaintiff also intends to share a proposed stipulated judgment with Defendant in an effort to reach a negotiated solution. Defendant’s counsel will require time to vet the proposal with his client. Plaintiff’s counsel will also need time to review with their client any competing proposal from Defendant." Lars-Erik Hjelm and Devin Sikes of Akin Gump met with Peter Mancuso of DOJ in the meeting. In return, the court granted the stay until Feb. 7, 2022 (World Wide Packaging, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00189).