AD/CV Decisions at the CIT In Second Half of January 2010
The following determinations of the Court of International Trade in the second half of January 2010 involved antidumping or countervailing duty law.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Court Allows Dismissal of Four Chinese Garlic Producers in Suit Against ITA
On May 13, 2009, the CIT remanded to the ITA the final results of the AD Administrative review of fresh garlic from China for the period November 1, 2003 through October 31, 2004, with respect to the value of the fresh garlic input and other elements of the normal value calculated by the ITA. Prior to the remand results from the ITA, four of the seven Chinese producers and plaintiffs requested a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, meaning that no further litigation over the review results could take place. The ITA and the other Chinese litigants did not object to the dismissal request, and though the domestic producers opposed the motion, the court ruled in favor of the voluntary dismissal. Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. et al v. U.S. and Fresh Garlic Producers Association et al, dated January 25, 2010, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op10/10-08.pdf
ITC Negative Injury Determination in Hot Rolled Steel Upheld on Remand
Following a five-year sunset review, on October 25, 2007, the International Trade Commission issued a final determination that revocation of the countervailing duty orders on hot-rolled steel products from Argentina and South Africa, and of the antidumping duty orders on hot-rolled steel products from Argentina, Kazakhstan, Romania, and South Africa, would not be likely to lead to material injury to U.S. industry. Domestic producers Nucor Corporation, U.S. Steel, and AK Steel Corporation sued, and the CIT on July 8, 2009 remanded the matter to the ITC to reevaluate and explain its decision more fully. The ITC's remand analysis came to the same conclusion as before, based largely on the argument that Arcelor Mittal would not be likely to import significant quantities from its plants in Kazakhstan, Romania, and South Africa, but would instead serve the U.S. market principally through its American subsidiary, Mittal USA. The court affirmed the ITC's remand determination. Nucor Corporation et al v. U.S., dated January 27, 2010, available at http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op10/10-10.pdf