Correction: The Commerce Department on March 12 conducted "under respectful protest" a pass-through analysis to show, by court order, that an Indonesian tax program that lowered the cost of an input wasn't being double counted by antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on biodiesel from Indonesia. The agency continued to find that there was no double remedy and that it could disregard some sales due to a particular market situation (see 2403130049).
Indian exporter Kumar Industries and the U.S. agreed that each should bear its own costs after Kumar withdrew its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an antidumping duty case (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).
The U.S. on March 13 responded to a petitioner’s remand redetermination comments after that petitioner directly told Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu he had been “misled” to issue an erroneous ruling (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00116).
Hyundai Challenges Commerce's de Facto Specificity Analysis on Korean Electricity in CVD Review Suit
Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued against the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is de facto specific in the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Filing a motion for judgment on March 12, Hyundai claimed that the record doesn't show that the steel industry "received a disproportionately large amount of this subsidy" as required by a de facto specificity analysis (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).
The Commerce Department on March 12 said that on remand it treated exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan, assigning the company a 5.2% AD rate. The agency asked for the remand so it could grant the exporter mandatory respondent status following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said Commerce must use more than one mandatory respondent where multiple companies request review (see 2208290026) (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).
The Commerce Department on March 12 reluctantly conducted a pass-through analysis to show, by court order, that a remedy wasn't being redundantly applied by both AD and CVD orders on biodiesel from Indonesia due to a government subsidy that lowered the cost of an input (Wilmar Trading PTE Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00121).
The government was right to say that a Chinese brick importer’s magnesia alumina graphite bricks were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China, a petitioner argued in a case regarding the quantity of alumina needed to exempt magnesia alumina graphite bricks from duties (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).
The language of AD/CVD orders on steel wheels from China doesn't prevent the Commerce Department from conducting a substantial transformation analysis on wheels that only have one Chinese-origin component out of two, the U.S. said in a March 8 brief opposing a plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT # 23-00096).
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 released its questions ahead of March 19 oral arguments in a case on the 2019-21 review of the antidumping duty order on Indian quartz countertops. Judge Mark Barnett asked a host of questions pertaining to the Commerce Department's filing deadlines (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).