The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 20 granted Indian exporter Kumar Industries' motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of an antidumping duty case. Kumar had appealed a decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available AD rate to the exporter based on its "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners' ownership interests in two unnamed companies (see 2311270005). The rate came as part of the first review of the AD order on glycine from India, which found that Kumar prevented Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis. Kumar withdrew the appeal last month, saying it "elected not to further pursue its appeal" (see 2402260033) (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).
The Court of International Trade on March 20 upheld the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate Brazil's imports with the other countries included in the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K.
Russian exporters PhosAgro, Apatit and Industrial Group Phosphorite will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of exporter PhosAgro's profit before tax number instead of its gross profit mark when calculating the company's phosphate mining rights benefit (see 2401190037). The exporter will take the case contesting the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Russia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In its decision, the trade court rejected PhosAgro's clam that its gross profit number "more accurately reflects the commercial reality" of its pricing process (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00117).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on March 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate goods from Brazil with other countries that are part of the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the commission's analysis didn't "engage in impermissibly 'circular' reasoning," the ITC's treatment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs didn't impermissibly depart from past agency practice and the commission appropriately explained its decision not to cumulate Brazil's goods.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 19 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to grant respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals a constructed export price offset in the antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India, despite finding that the company failed to establish the amount and nature of the offset.
In a March 18 brief supporting a Jan. 24 motion to dismiss (see 2401230040), the U.S. again argued in a case involving the antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it “is, or could have been” available under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).
Exporter PT. Zinus Global Indonesia on March 14 dismissed its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the 2020-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia. The exporter filed the complaint in the case last month, contesting the Commerce Department's constructed value profit and selling expense ratios, treatment of B grade mattress sales as U.S. sales and differential pricing analysis. No reason was provided as to the suit's dismissal (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, CIT # 24-00004).
Petitioners contested in comments March 13 a third remand redetermination in which the Commerce Department reluctantly ruled that a German government subsidy was not specific to a German exporter of forged steel fluid end block. Commerce failed to conduct a de facto specificity analysis, they argued (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
Certain types of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe exported from the U.S. to Mexico for reprocessing and subsequent re-importation are not covered by the antidumping duty order on Mexican standard pipe, the Commerce Department said in a March 13 scope ruling. The products’ country of origin is the U.S., not Mexico, the department said.