The Court of International Trade on Aug. 20 remanded the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on solar products from China. Judge Claire Kelly sent back Commerce's decision not to adjust exporter Trina Solar Co.'s U.S. price by the amount of six programs the agency countervailed in the most recent accompanying countervailing duty review. Kelly found that Commerce failed to explain its decision that the six programs weren't export contingent.
Court of International Trade activity
The U.S. acknowledged on Aug. 16 that CBP mistakenly liquidated certain tire entries subject to an injunction from the Court of International Trade. Filing a status report, the government said the Commerce Department "took corrective action," telling CBP to "promptly return to unliquidated status any entries that had been inadvertently liquidated in violation of the Court’s order" (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00233).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 said it's unreasonable for the Commerce Department not to attempt verification of an exporter's certificates proclaiming nonuse of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, despite the exporter not having submitted such certificates for all its customers.
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 19 sustained the Commerce Department's first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. Judge Jane Restani said jurisprudence from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test doesn't compel the revocation of the AD order for exporter Resolute FP Canada. The judge held that since neither court has rejected the standard use of the test, Commerce wasn't required to revert Resolute's dumping margin to zero in the underlying investigation.
After three remands by Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett, the Commerce Department on Aug. 15 yet again found that a petitioner’s evidence wasn’t enough for the department to investigate an allegation that the Korean government was providing subsidized electricity to South Korean steel exporters during off-peak hours (Nucor v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).
In a confidential order, the Court of International Trade on Aug. 15 remanded the final results of an administrative review on frozen shrimp from India. In doing so, Judge Thomas Aquilino granted the motions for judgment of both an exporter and a petitioner (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 16 remanded the Commerce Department's inclusion of the alleged subsidy rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in exporter Risen Energy Co.'s countervailing duty margin in the 2020 review of the order on Chinese solar cells. Judge Jane Restani said that while there is a gap in the record due to the Chinese government's failure to cooperate, Risen failed to fill the gap because it submitted only nonuse certificates from all but one of its customers. However, the judge said it's unreasonable for Commerce to not prorate Risen's CVD rate for the EBCP based on all the sales the company was able to verify didn't benefit from the EBCP.
Last week, the Court of International Trade said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) didn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire, alleging that it's harvested by child labor (see 2408080049). Speaking with Trade Law Daily, Terrence Collingsworth, counsel for IRAdvocates, said he intends to appeal the decision but, should that fail, he is ready to bring alternative plaintiffs before the court who may more clearly establish standing.
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) will appeal its three separate cases filed at the Court of International Trade regarding the sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #'s 22-00349, -00350, -00351).