The Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to amend the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada to revoke the order as to exporter Resolute FP Canada in the sunset review of the order.
Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Unicatch Industrial Co. for failing to submit adequate cost reconciliation information in the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against respondent Unicatch Industrial Co. in the 2015-16 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan. Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Unicatch failed to act to the best of its ability in submitting cost reconciliation information. The court also said the 78.17% petition rate was realistic as the AFA rate since two sales from Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, the other respondent, exceeded this rate. Lastly, the court said Commerce properly used the expected method in setting the average rate for non-reviewed respondents at 35.3%.
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 13 opinion again affirmed the president's ability to make trade-restrictive modifications to Section 201 safeguard tariffs. Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark partially granted a group of solar cell exporters' motion for panel rehearing of its 2023 decision, which came to the same conclusion, so that the court could conduct a de novo review of the applicable statute, instead of reviewing whether the president's interpretation of the law was a "clear misconstruction" of the statute.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 13 again said President Donald Trump didn't violate the Trade Act of 1974 when he revoked a Section 201 tariff on bifacial solar panels. The court previously sustained the move in a November 2023 decision (see 2311130031). Partially granting a group of solar cell exporters' motion for panel reconsideration, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark conducted a de novo review of the president's interpretation of the applicable statute allowing for the tariff action instead of reviewing whether the interpretation was a "clear misconstruction" of the statute. However, the panel said that the case isn't an "appropriate vehicle" for overruling the court's "clear misconstruction" standard of review for presidential decisions under the Trade Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 12 ordered exporter Risen Energy Co. to appear at oral argument in an antidumping duty case after the company waived its right to appear (see 2408020019). Risen originally brought suit to contest the 2017-18 AD review on solar cells from China, arguing that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). The per curiam order from the court told Risen to appear at oral argument after the U.S. said it would appear (see 2408070003) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
An exporter and a petitioner each filed an opposition to the Commerce Department’s final results upon remand for an antidumping duty review on Indian-origin steel pipe, in which the department provided a strong defense of adverse facts available as a tool to combat the problem of noncooperative unaffiliated suppliers (see 2407100037) (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 said the Commerce Department's use of only adverse facts available rates to set the rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping proceedings, known as the "expected method," is not presumptively unreasonable. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said instead that the "burden is on Commerce to justify a departure from the expected method, not to justify its use."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 held that it's not unreasonable for the Commerce Department to set the all-others rate for non-individually examined respondents in an antidumping proceeding by using only total adverse facts available rates assigned to the mandatory respondents. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said there's no burden on Commerce to show that using only AFA is reasonable, finding instead that the burden is on the agency to "justify a departure from the expected method," not to "justify its use." Judge Timothy Dyk filed a partial dissent, finding that just because the use of AFA is "expected" doesn't make it "reasonable." As a result, Dyk said Commerce must show that the sole use of AFA in setting the all-others rate is reasonable.