The Court of International Trade on May 2 sustained the Commerce Department's recalculation of exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's sales expenses in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Sahamitr failed to undermine Commerce's finding that the company's monthly-based calculation of its sales costs were distortive.
The Court of International Trade on May 2 again sent back the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea (K-ETS) was de jure specific. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce improperly used de facto specificity analysis factors, including data on who received the allotments, in assessing whether the additional permit allocations were specific as a matter of law.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 1 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's eighth review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly's text-only version of the opinion sent back Commerce's "determination of the review specific rate applicable to JA Solar and BYD." In a letter, Kelly gave the parties until May 8 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00219).
Southwest Airlines argued in an April 30 motion for judgment that CBP illicitly exacted Customs Passenger Processing Fees for passengers that canceled ticket purchases with the airline (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).
The Court of International Trade on May 2 again remanded the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allocation of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea was a de jure specific subsidy. Judge Mark Barnett said the agency illicitly considered factors used as part of a de facto specificity analysis to assess the program, noting that those factors can't be used to find if the program is specific as a matter of law. However, the judge sustained Commerce's findings that the full allotment amounted to a financial contribution to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and that the company benefited from the allotment.
Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that classifying its substances used to "treat life-threatening diseases in young children" as food preparations "not elsewhere specified" as opposed to "medicaments" or items "for the use or benefit" of handicapped people would lead to the "parents of very ill children" paying higher prices for these substances. In its opening brief on April 30, Nutricia said that this isn't the result Congress intended and that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule "can and should be interpreted to avoid that result" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).
The Court of International Trade on May 2 sustained the Commerce Department's rejection of exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's allocation method for its certification expenses in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce had the authority to pick an allocation method that gave the exporter a chance to get a price adjustment for certification expenses while "avoiding the distortions reflected in the company's recalculation." The judge added that Commerce properly supported its finding that the allocation method used by Sahamitr was distortive.
Exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. responded to a host arguments from the U.S. regarding the Commerce Department's surrogate value calculations on a variety of activated carbon inputs as part of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. In a reply brief filed last week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Carbon Activated said the Court of International Trade erred in sustaining Commerce's surrogate financial ratios and surrogate values for carbonized metal, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and ocean freight (Carbon Activated v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).
Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. on April 26 said that the U.S. attempted to "shield itself under the blanket of" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 1999 decision in AK Steel v. U.S. in its bid to countervail the Port of Incheon program in South Korea. However, AK Steel is "inapposite" for the present case since it came at a time before the existing Uruguay Round Agreements Act CVD statute and, as such, didn't contemplate the provision on what constitutes a countervailable benefit (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).