Court of International Trade

The Commerce Department failed to properly select respondents for a countervailing duty administrative review and assign an accurate CVD rate to the non-selected respondents, wood flooring exporters Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Jiangsu Keri Wood Co. and Sino-Maple Co. told the Court of International Trade in a May 14 brief supporting their motion for judgment. Commerce used faulty CBP data when picking its mandatory respondents for the case, and as a result incorrectly determined that Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co. was one of the two largest exporters of the subject merchandise, leading to its selection as a mandatory respondent and subsequently skewing the all-other respondent rate in the investigation, the brief said.

The Court of International Trade is considering staying two antidumping cases until a related question has concluded litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said in a May 13 letter. In the Federal Circuit, a particular market situation (PMS) finding for certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea is being challenged and could be determined to be directly relevant to exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s cases in CIT (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 19-00086 and # 20-00150). The Department of Justice broached the idea of a stay until the Federal Circuit case, brought by Nexteel Co., is settled in another SeAH challenge of the same Commerce Department determination (see 2105120028). Responses in both SeAH cases to the question of a stay are due by May 17.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Court of International Trade's decision to reject a Commerce Department methodology for calculating antidumping duty margins, in a May 14 opinion. In the ruling, the Federal Circuit found Commerce's attempt to allocate import duties exempted or rebated "based on the import duty absorbed into, or imbedded in, the overall cost of producing the merchandise under consideration," when constructing the export price in an AD review, was unsupported by the law. Commerce attempted this new methodology for calculating the U.S. price for Indian exporter Uttam Galva Steels Limited in an antidumping duty investigation into corrosion-resistent steel products (CORE) from India.

The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping case on off-the-road tires from China for a second time, ruling that the Commerce Department failed to provide substantial evidence in determining that two respondents were under de facto government control and not warranting of an individual AD rate. Commerce had determined the Chinese government controlled export functions for Aeolus Tyre and Guizho Tyre Co. (GTC). Judge Timothy Stanceu disagreed in a May 14 opinion. The first remand was in 2019.

Chinese tire exporters argued against the Commerce Department's choice to only use one mandatory respondent in an antidumping case on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, filing opening briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 11. Exporters and appellants ITG Voma Corporation, Suton Tire Resources, YC Rubber Co. and Mayrun Tyre submitted two briefs in the appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion that determined that the statute allows for Commerce to select only one respondent. The exporters argue this is a misinterpretation of the law, citing the language of the governing statute, which includes the plural terms "exporters" or "producers."

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 14 upheld the Court of International Trade's decision to reject the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment methodology for an Indian exporter in an antidumping duty investigation on corrosion-resistant steel products. Rather than follow its normal method of adjusting only the export price for drawback received by the exporter, Commerce in the investigation adjusted the exporter's overall costs of production, including for home market goods, resulting in a higher AD duty rate. Like CIT, the Federal Circuit held the broader allocation ran afoul of the relevant statute, which only requires an adjustment to export price.

The Court of International Trade sustained remand results in an antidumping investigation of whether a sale of steel flanges from Indian exporter Chandan Steel Limited should be excluded from its home market sales database when determining its antidumping duty margin, in a May 13 opinion. The Coalition of American Flange Producers, petitioners in the investigation, argued that Commerce had improperly come to the conclusion to exclude one sale from Chandan's home market database because Commerce failed to show that Chandan knew its sales were for export. In deciding if Chandan knew of its shipment's destination, Commerce considered three pieces of evidence: 1) the export quality packaging provision of the shipment, 2) Chandan's treatment of the shipment's logo and 3) the final payment and delivery terms of the sale. In all three cases, the court upheld Commerce's rationale for finding that all the evidence shows Chandan intended to export its steel flange shipment. For instance, the agency found that the logo on the shipment was consistent with goods sent to foreign markets "because sales to Indian customers and other customers abroad generally had different markings."

The Court of International Trade remanded for a second time an antidumping case on certain off-the-road tires from China, ruling that the Commerce Department failed to provide enough evidence that two respondents were under de facto government control and not warranting of an individual AD rate. Commerce had found in an administrative review that the Chinese government controlled export functions for exporters Aeolus Tyre and Guizhou Tyre Co., assigning them a 105.31% rate as part of the China-wide entity.

Since CBP seized a shipment of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine and did not subject it to deemed exclusion from entry, a case challenging the seizure does not have jurisdiction in the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a May 12 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Importer Root Sciences argues that since it received a notice of seizure after the date of deemed exclusion, its shipment was deemed excluded from entry and thus warranting of jurisdiction in CIT, but citing past court precedent, DOJ said that notice of seizure is not the date of seizure, declaring that "a seizure necessarily occurs prior to the date on which Customs issues the notice of seizure," (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).

The Department of Justice requested a stay of proceedings in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, arguing that there is significant overlap with a case currently before the Federal Circuit on the issue of whether a particular market situation existed in South Korea for the product in question. Filing for the stay in a case brought by SeAH Steel Corporation challenging the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea, DOJ said that the Federal Circuit's decision will answer one of the central questions in SeAH's lawsuit, and would "likely streamline the issues in the case" (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT # 19-00086). Plaintiffs do not consent to the stay request.