Even if the Commerce Department did not act within its authority when deciding not to include the views of countertop fabricators in its industry support determination before beginning an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on quartz surface products from India, the agency still had the requisite level of industry support and the authority to start the investigation anyway, petitioner Cambria Company said in a June 9 brief backing the Department of Justice's defense in a case at the Court of International Trade (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00127).
The Court of International Trade again found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding Section 232 tariffs to steel and aluminum "derivatives" in a June 10 decision. Relying on its recent ruling in a similar case involving nail importer PrimeSource, Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves and Timothy Stanceu, as part of a three-judge panel, awarded refunds to Oman Fasteners, Huttig Building Products and Huttig Inc. The panel ruled that the president illegally announced the tariff expansion after the 105-day deadline laid out by Section 232, but denied the plaintiff's other two claims, without prejudice, on the procedural violations of the tariff expansion.
Chinese exporter Changzhou Trina Solar Energy's case was severed from a consolidated action in the Court of International Trade because the other plaintiffs are appealing the trade court's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a June 9 order said. Trina originally filed its lawsuit in CIT to challenge the final results of the fourth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. As a result of the CIT decision, Trina's total CVD rate dropped from 9.12% to 2.93%. CIT also ordered entries related to Trina's case liquidated (Canadian Solar Inc. et al v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00184).
Importers must file protests to preserve their ability to obtain refunds under exclusions from Section 301 tariffs, the Court of International Trade said in a June 11 decision. Judge Miller Baker dismissed a lawsuit from importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co., finding the court did not have jurisdiction to hear their challenge since they did not timely file protests of the CBP liquidations assessing the Section 301 duties. The importers had filed their lawsuits under CIT's residual Section 1581(i) jurisdiction, but that provision was unavailable because the importers were actually challenging a CBP classification decision, CIT said.
The Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production (FPO) data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis in an antidumping case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 9 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon, in a consolidated action challenging an antidumping administrative review on certain steel nails from China, said that Commerce had the right to switch to a CONNUM-specific reporting requirement and that the mandatory respondent should have known about this switch. Gordon also found that Commerce was justified in using a total AFA rate for two mandatory respondents to calculate the non-individually reviewed respondent rate.
Steel rebar importer Power Steel Co. paid Section 232 duties on its imports, and those payments were eligible to be deducted from its U.S. price in an antidumping case, the Department of Justice argued in a June 9 brief in the Court of International Trade (Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03771).
The Commerce Department's decision on remand to reverse its affirmative determination that certain hardwood plywood products from China circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties "defies a wealth of evidence about what actually occurred in the hardwood plywood market," petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in June 7 comments on Commerce's remand results. Commerce ignored multiple pieces of contradictory evidence in making its determination following a Court of International Trade opinion remanding the case and made a determination that undermines its own conclusion that certain hardwood plywood was not "later-developed" after the AD/CVD orders, the coalition said (Shelter Forest International Acquisition, Inc. et al v. United States, CIT #19-00212).
The Commerce Department "finally" came to a conclusion in an antidumping administrative review on large power transformers from South Korea that is in line with "record facts, the law and basic standards of investigative fairness," mandatory respondent Hyosung Heavy Industries Corporation said in June 7 comments on remand results. Joined by the other mandatory respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries and the Department of Justice, Hyosung voiced its approval of the remand results in the Court of International Trade, which scrapped the application of total adverse facts available after DOJ requested a voluntary remand to "reconsider" the original determinations (Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #18-00066).
The Department of Justice takes too narrow a view on when labeling qualifies as printed material in the tariff schedule, Amcor Flexibles Kreuzlingen said in a June 7 brief responding to DOJ’s motion for judgment in a classification case at the Court of International Trade. Amcor argues that the printed labeling on its pharmaceutical packaging is of primary importance, and the packaging should as a result be classified in heading 4911 as printed matter, rather than as aluminum foil of heading 7607.
The Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production data on a product-specific basis in an antidumping case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 9 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon, in a consolidated action challenging an antidumping administrative review on steel nails from China, said Commerce had the right to switch to the control number-specific reporting requirement and the mandatory respondent should have known about this switch. Gordon also found that Commerce was justified in including the total AFA rate for two of the three mandatory respondents in the average for the non-individually reviewed respondents' rate.