The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The government said in a May 20 status update that, for a case regarding an exporter’s adverse facts available rate after COVID-19 prevented in-person verification, the Commerce Department's remand redetermination will be out by Aug. 20 (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. U.S., CIT #22-00007).
Importer Valeo North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department violated a "foundational principle of administrative law" in concluding the company's T-series aluminum sheet was covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Commerce failed to follow its "well-established legal framework" in making the scope decision, neglecting its duty as an administrative agency to provide coherent, ascertainable guidance so that regulated parties may anticipate how agencies enforce their rules and regulations," Valeo said (Valeo North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).
A Chinese solar panel exporter said May 15 that the U.S. claim that adverse facts available findings for the Chinese government’s Export Buyers’ Credit Program are directed at the Chinese government, not individual exporters, is a “false narrative” (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).
The Court of International Trade on May 20 entered stipulated judgment in a pair of customs suits brought by Home Depot U.S.A., lowering the duty rate on the retail giant's imported residential door knobs packaged with at least one deadbolt, from 5.7% to 3.9% (Home Depot U.S.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 14-00122, -00123).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 20 that the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties.
AD petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corporation merged their challenge to an antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China at the Court of International Trade with a similar challenge from Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. and Heze Huayi Chemical Co. (Bio-Lab, et al. v. United States, CIT # 24-00024) (Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00026).
Chinese truck and bus tire exporters subject to a nearly 5-year-old administrative review that was delayed by an ongoing court challenge should still have kept their records while the litigation played out (see 2402060054), Judge Mark Barnett said during oral argument in the case. During the review, the Commerce Department removed separate rate status for four exporters who refused to serve as mandatory respondents because they said they hadn’t kept the necessary records (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 20 ruled that the Court of International Trade was wrong to establish a 50% threshold when determining whether demand for an agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties. Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said the Commerce Department has significant leeway in determining whether substantial dependence exists. In the present case, which assessed subsidies to Spanish raw olive growers, the court affirmed Commerce's finding of substantial dependence, finding that errors in the agency's analysis of dependence were nonprejudicial to the affected Spanish ripe olive exporters.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: