Antidumping duty petitioner Catfish Farmers of America dropped two cases at the Court of International Trade concerning the surrogate information used in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 reviews of the AD order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The petitioner said that in light of the trade court's recent decision sustaining the Commerce Department's choice of India as a surrogate over Indonesia in a previous review of the same AD order (see 2503100059), it's dismissing its cases on the later two reviews. The petitioner said it's dropping the cases to conserve resources "while continuing to pursue issues relevant to surrogate country and value selection in ongoing and future administrative reviews" (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT #s 21-00380, 22-00125).
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "China import").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).
Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").
Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
A petitioner March 27 supported a U.S. motion to dismiss exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies’ complaint (see 2503250054). It agreed that the pipe exporter hadn’t established the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over it (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).
The Commerce Department has let respondents "game the system" and avoid countervailing duty liability for an otherwise countervailable program "simply by requesting a 'verification' after the fact from a willing foreign government," petitioner Titan Tire Corp. argued in a March 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Titan Tire said this system "creates a loophole that threatens to eviscerate the regulation through significant potential gamesmanship" (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
The Commerce Department permissibly said that backboards are veneers for purposes of identifying a benefit provided to countervailing duty respondents regarding the provision of veneers for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held on March 27. Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce "explained adequately that the plain language of the Order’s scope defines backboard as a type of veneer."
The Court of International Trade denied March 27 a German thermal paper exporter’s and its affiliate’s motion to dismiss the case brought against it seeking payment of nearly $200 million in outstanding duties. In doing so, CIT Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that the trade court has personal jurisdiction over exporter Koehler Oberkirch and its affiliate, Koehler Paper.
The Court of International Trade on March 27 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Timothy Reif upheld Commerce's calculation of a benchmark price for plywood using a weighted average of U.N. Comtrade and International Tropical Timber Organization data, the agency's inclusion of respondents' backboard purchases in the calculation of a benefit from the provision of veneers for less than adequate remuneration, and Commerce's decision to add a 17% value-added tax rate to the benchmark price for various inputs. Reif also upheld the use of adverse facts available against respondent Baroque Timber's use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, though he granted the government's voluntary remand request to reconsider the use of such facts against respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., since the company submitted non-use certifications for all of its U.S. buyers.
The International Trade Commission's "practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses is unlawful," the Court of International Trade held on March 27. Judge Stephen Vaden held that the practice isn't in line with "statute, regulation, precedent, and common sense."
The Court of International Trade on March 26 denied importer Eteros Technologies USA an expedited briefing schedule in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the importer received a favorable ruling at the trade court. Judge Gary Katzmann said Eteros hasn't shown that "good cause" warrants a speedy resolution of the case.
The Court of International Trade on March 27 held that the International Trade Commission's "practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses" in injury proceedings is "unlawful." Judge Stephen Vaden held that the practice is "inconsistent with statute, regulation, precedent, and common sense." The judge said the practice leads to treating "publicly available information as confidential," treating the same information inconsistently based only on how the ITC obtained it, and impermissibly designating information as confidential unilaterally. Vaden went through various information dubbed confidential in an injury proceeding on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, finding that all but one piece of it was improperly redacted.
Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann on March 27 denied a motion to dismiss a U.S. claim against German thermal paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch and its affiliate, Koehler Paper, for nearly $200 million in duties unpaid by the now-defunct Papierfabrik August Koehler. He said that the trade court has personal jurisdiction over the case because Koehler Oberkirch is the successor-in-interest of Papierfabrik August Koehler; meanwhile, Koehler Paper, due to the U.S. fraud allegation, is the successor-in-interest of Koehler Oberkirch (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).