Court of International Trade

Aluminum extrusion producer Kingtom Aluminio requested to intervene in a Court of International Trade case over an antidumping duty evasion investigation that found it transshipped aluminum extrusions from China through the Dominican Republic to skirt the duties. A previous request was denied by Judge Richard Eaton (see 2106210059). Undeterred, Kingtom filed a motion for reconsideration in the court. Eaton permitted the producer on Aug. 5 to support its motion with an affidavit by individuals who can speak to Kingtom's interests in the case along with a brief, with a maximum of 10 pages, to explain how this affidavit satisfies the requirement for intervention (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's second remand results in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from Taiwan in a July 30 decision released publicly Aug. 6. After issuing two prior opinions in the case, Chief Judge Mark Barnett considered Commerce's second remand results, ultimately sending them back so the agency can further explain or reconsider its use of a simple average of the mandatory respondents' rates to establish the AD duty rate for non-individually examined respondents. However, Barnett did sustain Commerce's use of transaction-specific margins to corroborate the petition rate.

Two Court of International Trade cases from Optima Steel International should not be consolidated since they fall under different "jurisdictional provisions and standards of review," the Department of Justice argued in an Aug. 5 brief. While one case challenges CBP's assessment of antidumping duties and thus falls under Section 1581(a), the other goes after the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions and therefore is under Section 1581(i). "In Court No. 21-00062, the question before the Court is whether CBP, in its ministerial role, properly assessed antidumping duties to the entries at issue pursuant to Commerce’s liquidation instructions," DOJ said. "Court No. 21-00327, however, involves the question of whether Commerce’s liquidation instructions were proper based upon the record before Commerce. Thus, the distinct operative facts and legal issues in the two actions weigh against consolidation" (Optima Steel International, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00062) (Optima Steel Internaitonal, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

Garg Tube Export and Garg Tube Limited want proceedings in their Court of International Trade case stayed until another lawsuit, also filed by Garg Tube Export, is resolved, the plaintiffs said in an Aug. 5 motion. Since both cases concern the Commerce Department's finding of a particular market situation in India for the sale of welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes, the similarity of the legal issues prompts a stay order, the plaintiffs said. Garg requested the stay in a case over the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India until the appeal is resolved for its case over the 2017-18 administrative review for the same goods. Doing so would "promote judicial efficiency," the exporter said (Garg Tube Export LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00169).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion protest brought by All One God Faith, doing business as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, since the court lacks jurisdiction over the entries, the U.S. defense said on Aug. 2 in a partial motion to dismiss. Since Dr. Bronner's xanthan gum entries have already liquidated and the importer failed to make a timely appeal of its protest of the liquidation, the court has no jurisdiction over the entries, the Department of Justice said (All One God Faith, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department properly selected Mexico over Malaysia as the surrogate nation in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade held in an Aug. 5 opinion. Ruling that Mexico served as a significant producer of identical merchandise and that the selection of the Mexican financial statements was backed by reasonable evidence, Judge Timothy Reif upheld Commerce's determination.

A Court of International Trade case over importer Greenlight Organic's alleged fraud in misclassifying its knit garments should be dropped since the statute of limitations ran out, Greenlight said in an Aug. 3 brief. After the court ruled in 2018 that the statute of limitations had some lingering questions, Greenlight said it has procured enough evidence for the court to now rule in its favor and that the U.S.'s fraud case is effectively time barred (United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc. et al., CIT #17-00031).

The Commerce Department permissibly relied on total adverse facts available in an antidumping case in light of the Court of International Trade's orders, the Department of Justice argued in July 30 final comments on Commerce's remand results. The respondent, Hung Vuong Group, attempted to submit new factual information in the case before the remand was filed, but no such authority exists for this submission to be accepted, DOJ said (Hung Vuong Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Commerce Department unlawfully selected Malaysia as its surrogate country in an antidumping duty administrative review and the decision should be remanded by the Court of International Trade for reconsideration of selecting Romania instead, plaintiffs in a case challenging the review said in July 30 comments opposing the first remand results. Seeing as the remand itself recognizes the superiority of the Romanian data and acknowledges certain input data from Malaysia is aberrational, the court should hold that Commerce's reliance on Malaysia as the surrogate nation is unlawful, the plaintiffs said (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00007).