The Commerce Department permissibly refused to offer exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company separate rate status in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on catfish from Vietnam, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America argued in a Feb. 10 brief supporting Commerce's remand results. The petitioner said that while the Court of International Trade relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Yanghzou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. to remand the issue, legal developments since Bestpak have called into question the relevance of the decision (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00092).
Indian exporter Jindal Poly Films said Feb. 10 that the government was wrong to claim that an employee’s “severe illness” wasn’t a “medical emergency” that justified an untimely filing extension request. Overall, it said, the Commerce Department’s rejection of that request was the result of an analysis that was “riddled with errors” (Jindal Poly Films v. United States, CIT # 24-00053).
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 Commerce Department's third factor for assessing a foreign government's de facto control over an exporter, which addresses the selection of management, doesn't require a link to export activities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Feb. 11. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen also held that Commerce properly requires separate rate respondents to "carry a burden of persuasion to justify a separate rate," rejecting exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s claim that the agency shouldn't have conflated a rebuttable presumption with a requirement to carry a burden of persuasion.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
In a motion for judgment, exporter CS Wind Malaysia again said the Commerce Department should have adjusted its manufacturing costs for a production stoppage throughout most of the period of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order (see 2409090008) (CS Wind Malaysia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00150).
The Court of International Trade reassigned a case on importer Meyer Corp.'s claim for first sale valuation on its cookware imports, from Judge Thomas Aquilino to Judge Richard Eaton. In his first decision in the case, Aquilino questioned whether first sale valuation could be used for goods coming from non-market economies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CBP has no basis to consider a nation's NME status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment, sending the case back for consideration of Meyer's shipments (see 2208110060). In his second opinion, Aquilino said the imports at issue don't quality for first sale treatment due to the failure of Meyer's parent company, Meyer International Holdings, to submit financial information (see 2302090053). This decision is now before the Federal Circuit again, which held oral argument in September 2024 (see 2409040034) (Meyer Corp. v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).
Exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed an attempt by U.S. industry groups the Aluminum Extruders Council and the United Steelworkers union to intervene in Kingtom's case against a finding by CBP that the company uses forced labor. Kingtom argued that the petitioners want to employ the "age-old schoolyard tactic of 'two-against-one,'" adding that the parties have "no independent interest of their own in this action" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).
The U.S. responded Feb. 7 to an Italian pasta exporter’s argument that application of excessive adverse facts available violates the Eighth Amendment, saying the amendment “has no bearing” on antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. It explained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circut has found the use of AFA to be “remedial, not punitive” (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).
Importer Shamrock Building Materials filed a stipulation of dismissal in its customs case at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7. The importer brought the suit to contest CBP's classification of its electrical metallic tubing finished conduit and intermediate metal conduit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7306.30.1000 or 7306.30.5028, dutiable at 25%. The company said the products should fall under duty-free subheading 8547.90.0020. Counsel for Shamrock didn't respond to a request for comment (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT # 21-00571).