The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty petitioner Nucor Corp.'s standards for quantitative data over a level of trade (LOT) adjustment misrepresent the Commerce Department's requirements for quantitative data, AD respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey (Prolamsa) argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Nothing on the record suggests that Prolamsa's evidence was "incapable of being verified," the brief said (Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT #20-00166).
When it comes to the question of whether a countervailing duty respondent's U.S. customers used China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, "'No' means 'no,'" respondent Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. said in a June 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Yama said it fully answered whether this program was used by any of its customers and that should be enough for Commerce to verify non-use (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00402).
The Commerce Department cannot countervail Vietnam's currency devaluation practices, exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) (KTV) said in a May 25 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S.'s and the CVD petitioner's arguments to the contrary, particularly that currency devaluation is specific to exporters, ignore that Vietnamese exporters don't have to convert their U.S. dollar earnings into Vietnamese dong, the brief said (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) v. U.S., CIT #21-00397).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Defendant-appellees in an anti-circumvention case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit employ a "'pay no attention to what's behind the curtain' approach" as it relates to exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel's (AGIS) level of investment in the United Arab Emirates, AGIS argued in a June 1 brief. Replying to briefs from the U.S. and petitioner Steel Dynamics, AGIS said the appellees failed to show why enough evidence backs the Commerce Department's value-added calculations to justify the use of an unreasonable investment comparison methodology or to show that Commerce's disregard of numerous patterns of trade was reasonable (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1199).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a May 25 opinion found that shipments from two Alaskan shipping companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, do not qualify for an exception of the Jones Act. Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the shipments do not qualify for the Third Proviso of the Jones Act since they do not engage in transportation over a Canadian rail line.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., appeared in two antidumping duty cases as a supplemental authority, according to two notices at the Court of International Trade. The May 24 opinion said the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available over a respondent's reporting of service-related revenue. The court ruled that Commerce's change of methodology and later finding that the respondent failed to provide all the required sales data in the right form cut against the statutory requirement to provide notice and opportunity to remedy a deficiency (see 2205240028). The appellate court said that Commerce has no right to use AFA unless the respondent has failed to provide the requested information after being notified of the deficiency.
Arguments from plaintiff-appellants in an antidumping duty case, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., are merely a bid to have the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit impermissibly re-weigh the record evidence over surrogate value questions, defendant-appellees Calgon Carbon Corp. and Norbit Americas argued in a May 31 reply brief. Also filing its reply brief was DOJ, arguing that the Commerce Department properly picked Malaysia over Romania as the primary surrogate country (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1298).