The U.S.'s customs penalty suit against importer Wanxiang America Corp., a U.S. subsidiary of a Chinese manufacturing company, is a "money grab, plain and simple," Michael Roll, counsel for WXA, said during oral argument at the Court of International Trade on May 17. Roll said that because the U.S. is only seeking a penalty for WXA's entries from a company with a 92.84% dumping rate and not entries made before or after the ones at issue from a company with a zero percent rate, it is clear the government is trying to "grab the money" (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).
The Commerce Department's new proposed regulations covering trade remedy proceedings may lead to a "significant number of new allegations and arguments in AD/CVD proceedings," Sidley Austin said in a client alert this week. Highlighting three of the potential new tools to be added to the agency's toolkit in the proposed rules, Sidley added that one of the mechanisms -- Commerce's removal of the regulation barring it from countervailing transnational subsidies -- may violate World Trade Organization commitments.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered Judge Pauline Newman to not publicly disclose the names of witnesses in the court's ongoing investigation on whether the judge is fit to continue serving on the bench. Releasing the order publicly along with all other court orders and letters in the probe, per Newman's request, the appellate court said that Newman and her counsel remain bound by the court's confidentiality order in the investigation regarding future orders and filings.
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in an antidumping duty proceeding. Judge Jane Restani said the issue had already been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Commerce. The judge's one-page opinion on the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey is identical to the court's order two days prior, concluding a similar suit also brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann on the 2020-21 review of the AD order (see 2305160037) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 22-00057).
The Commerce Department failed to rely on the best available information when setting surrogate values for antidumping duty respondent Risen Energy Co.'s backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) inputs in the AD administrative review on solar cells from China in 2017-18, Risen argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Risen also challenged the Commerce's calculation of the company's financial ratios (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
Importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) failed to identify a flaw in the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning the origin of the company's uninterruptible power supplies, Judge Leo Gordon said in denying Cyber Power's bid for CIT reconsideration. The judge said the request "is premised on the incorrect assumption that the court found that" the importer overcame the presumption of correctness linked to CBP's country of origin determination, which found that the products were made in China.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the antidumping duty administrative review on standard pipe from Turkey for 2020-21 after the issue in the case brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret was resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court ruled that Commerce can legally deduct President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in AD proceedings (see 2303150035). Borusan had raised the issue in a separate case at CIT (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00005).
The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's voluntary request for remand for 120 days to review information submitted by antidumping duty respondent Officine Tecnosider on the agency's use of a quarterly cost methodology. Commerce asked for the remand since it said it couldn't find its analysis of the quarterly average prices of steel slab when prepping its reply brief to Officine Tecnosider in a case on the administrative review of the AD order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Italy for 2020-21 (see 2305080066) (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
CIT Upholds Commerce Finding That Tire Exporter Failed to Rebut Presumption of Chinese State Control
The Court of International Trade on May 16 upheld a finding that exporter Double Coin Holdings failed to rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping case, sustaining the company's 105.31% China-wide rate in an administrative review on off-the-road tires from China.