The Commerce Department reasonably used the Thailand Board of Investment's Cost of Doing Business in Thailand 2023 report as a benchmark to determine the benefit for Vietnam's "Exemption or Reduction of Rents for Encouraged Industries" subsidy, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 8.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's finding on remand that exporter Co May Import-Export Company didn't have a bona fide sale of subject merchandise during the review period of a new shipper review. Judge Jane Restani said the decision complies with the court's remand order.
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 8 sustained the Commerce Department's overhead ratio calculations following a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the agency's treatment of energy and manufacturing overhead costs in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China.
CAFC Hears Oral Argument on Interpretation of Statute Governing Automatic Drawback Claim Liquidation
In oral argument held Jan. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that it preferred the government’s stricter interpretation of the statute governing automatic liquidation of drawback claims over an importer’s more expansive one (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 8 held that domestic sales, "in certain circumstances, may qualify as the basis for using transaction value as an appraisement method." CAFC Judges Sharon Prost and Tiffany Cunningham, along with U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Judge Richard Andrews, held that the Court of International Trade got it right when it said the transaction value statute, 19 U.S.C. 1401a(b)(1), doesn't require an "international sale or a sale abroad to have occurred for a sale of merchandise to be considered as a sale 'for exportation to the United States.'"
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
In separate remand comments, Chinese solar cell exporters pushed back against the Commerce Department’s refusal on remand to put aside its valuation of solar glass using Romanian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7007.19.80 in a 2019-20 antidumping duty review (see 2509290044) (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00219).
If the Commerce Department recalculates the rate of a review’s mandatory respondent, it also must recalculate the review’s all-others rate, a Mexican light-walled rectangular pipe and tube exporter said in a Jan. 6 motion for judgment (Maquilacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00176).
Perkins Coie offered its initial defense in a malpractice suit against the firm relating to its representation of exporter Oman Fasteners in various antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings.