The Commerce Department properly decided not to use adverse facts available against antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company on remand in a case on the 2018-19 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade held on Feb. 4. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected petitioner Wheatland Tube Company's argument that an intervening decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the scope of the AD order impacts the court's previous decision rejecting the use of adverse facts available against Saha Thai. The previous decision was issued by former CIT Judge Stephen Vaden, after which the case was reassigned to Katzmann.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 3 entered default against importer Aspects Furniture International in a customs penalty suit originally brought against Aspects Furniture International, Aspects Furniture Manufacturing, Hospitality Engineering Services and an executive of all three companies, Amy Sivixay (see 2602030060). Deputy clerk Geoffrey Goell entered the default order for a cross-claim made by Sivixay, Aspects Furniture Manufacturing and Hospitality against Aspects Furniture International.
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. agreed to classify importer Outokumpu Stainless USA's steel imports as being of Mexican origin and liquidate the imports without Section 232 steel tariffs, according to a stipulated judgment filed at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 5 (Outokumpu Stainless USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00047).
The Commerce Department unlawfully used distortive data that failed to account for the impact of grade on the price of plywood and incorrectly applied adverse facts available, Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. argued on Feb. 2 in comments opposing Commerce’s remand determination filed with the Court of International Trade (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).
The Commerce Department reasonably compared countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel's share of the benefit received from subsidized industrial class electricity in 2021 with the company's share of South Korea's GDP for 2021 to assess the specificity of the subsidy, petitioner Nucor argued in Feb. 5 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Nucor said the comparison was reasonable, since it "illustrates how Hyundai Steel is using more industrial electricity, and thereby receiving more of a benefit, than its corresponding share of the Korean economy" (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).
Aluminum foil exporters led by mandatory respondent Jiangsu Dinsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. on Feb. 2 again challenged the Commerce Department’s finding in a countervailing duty review that Dingsheng wasn’t entitled to a double remedies adjustment, saying the finding was based on “supposed deficiencies” in Dingsheng’s reporting for which the exporter hadn’t received proper notice (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00264).
The Commerce Department properly set a global benchmark for measuring countervailing duty respondent JSC Apatit's purchases of subsidized natural gas, though it failed to support its benchmark for measuring a subsidy from the provision of phosphate ore mining rights, the Court of International Trade held on Feb. 6.
The Court of International Trade announced that Pacer.gov will undergo maintenance Feb. 8, 6:55 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET. During this time, users may experience intermittent difficulties when "logging onto CM/ECF and when making payments through Pay.gov."
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade: