The Commerce Department unlawfully found that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) was de facto specific based on heavy consumption by the chemical industry, exporter Kumho P&B Chemicals argued in a Dec. 2 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Kumho P&B Chemicals v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00143).
The Commerce Department failed to adequately explain its treatment of costs needed to convert steel plates into wind towers in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 2. Judge Leo Gordon said the U.S. provided "inadequate" explanation of the decision to use respondent Dongkuk’s reported conversion costs instead of the costs reported by the petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 remanded the Commerce Department's treatment of the costs to convert steel plates into wind towers in the 2021-22 antidumping review of utility wind scale towers from South Korea. Judge Leo Gordon found that Commerce failed to adequately explain why it chose to accept respondent Dongkuk's reported conversion costs instead of the costs reported by the petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition. The judge rejected the government's "circular reasoning" that Dongkuk reported its conversion costs "based on its normal books and records," and the judge held that the agency didn't explain why the petitioner's costs analysis using the first control number characteristic, tower sections, is "inappropriate."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned whether it should grant the government's voluntary remand motion in an antidumping duty case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in light of CAFC's decisions in Stupp v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S. During oral argument held Dec. 1, Judges Richard Taranto, William Bryson and Tiffany Cunningham appeared ready to grant the motion, asking the parties what specifically the remand order should say (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
In a statement of issues filed Nov. 24, petitioners Catfish Farmers of America again said their most recent case (see 2508200051) challenges the zero percent antidumping duty rate applied to all 2022-23 Vietnamese frozen fish fillet administrative review respondents (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT # 25-00156).
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 26 granted the government's motion for rehearing in a customs dispute on the classification of certain radial, web and chordal segments imported by Honeywell and used in airplane brakes, changing the classification of the parts to "fabrics" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6307. Judge Mark Barnett reversed his previous holding that the goods are "parts of an aircraft" under heading 8803, subjecting the items at issue to a 7% duty under subheading 6307.90.98.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Nov. 24 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 25 denied the government's motion to cancel oral argument in a case involving the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect masked dumping. In a per curiam order, the court said the parties "should plan to focus on" the government's motion for a voluntary remand "at argument" (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 21 for a voluntary remand in a case involving a challenge to the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in light of the CAFC's decision in Marmen v. U.S., invalidating the agency's approach to the test. The government asked that oral argument in the case, which is currently set for Dec. 1, be canceled (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).
Steel plate exporters Hyundai Steel and Dongkuk Steel Mill filed a pair of reply briefs at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 20, contesting the Commerce Department's de facto specificity regarding South Korea's discounted off-peak electricity prices in the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Both companies contested Commerce's grouping of three unrelated industries to find that the steel industry received a disproportionate amount of the subsidy (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00190).