Exporter Oman Fasteners has failed to show that paying cash deposits for antidumping duties will cause it immediate and irreparable harm, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 11 brief opposing the exporter's bid for a preliminary injunction against the payment of the cash deposits. The government said that Oman Fastener's bid to suspend collection of the cash deposits "asks for relief far beyond" the usual procedures "such that the United States would have almost no security to cover future duty liability." The exporter also has not shown that it will likely succeed on the merits of the case, the government said (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard claims over whether Krakatu POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned firm -- was an authority or directed by an authority for the purposes of a countervailing duty investigation. During oral arguments Jan. 11 before Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll, counsel for CVD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition, Kenertec Power System and the U.S. also argued over whether Indonesia's Rediscount Loan Program was an upstream subsidy and thus countervailable (Kenertec Power System v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03687).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally based the dumping rate for separate rate respondents on a single mandatory respondent, plaintiffs Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. and Carbon Activated Corp. argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established that Commerce is not allowed to do so, in its August 2022 decision in YC Rubber (North America) v. U.S., the plaintiffs said (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00335).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decisions not to account for compliance costs in its countervailing duty calculations for programs under the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act and to find that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific, in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade on Jan. 10. Commerce said that it did not make any changes to the CVD rates in the investigation for respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. United States, CIT # 21-00080).
CIT Upholds CVD Rate Over Commerce's Failure to Verify EBCP Non-Use Based on US Buyer's Lack of Info
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case involving the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. On remand, Commerce said that because one of respondent Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic's U.S. customers did not participate in the review's virtual verification, the agency didn't have enough information to verify Wuxi Tianran did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The respondent conceded that Commerce complied with the trade court's remand orders. Given the lack of any challenge, Judge Jane Restani upheld the case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during Jan. 10 oral arguments, heard disputes over whether the court should follow the Court of International Trade in setting aside Section 232 national security tariffs on derivative products made of steel and aluminum. Seeking to differentiate the appeal from the Federal Circuit's decision in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said the president can take certain Section 232 action beyond procedural deadlines, counsel for plaintiff-appellants PrimeSource Building Products, Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products said the matter is different for derivative goods, while the government said Transpacific has settled the matter (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. , Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
Plaintiffs Ellwood City Forge, Ellwood National Steel, Ellwood Quality Steel and A. Finkl & Sons will appeal a Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's use of a questionnaire instead of on-site verification in an antidumping duty case. The plaintiffs will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Jan. 6 notice of appeal. In the case, which concerns the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy, the trade court said the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies on the verification question (see 2206140044). The plaintiffs then unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the issue -- a move the court deemed to be an impermissible attempt to relitigate the case (Ellwood City Forge v. U.S., CIT #21-00073).
The Commerce Department violated the law when it carried out a bona fides analysis of separate rate respondent Dalian Hualing Wood Co. in an antidumping duty review, the exporter argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The move "was contrary to its precedent, practice, was arbitrary" and not supported by evidence, the brief said. Commerce further erred by treating Hualing's sale as non-bona fide in the antidumping duty review while treating it as bona fide in the countervailing duty review (Dalian Hualing Wood Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00334).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 9 opinion denied the New Zealand government's bid to delay a preliminary injunction barring the import of certain fish taken from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries into the U.S. The New Zealand government requested the temporary stay of the PI to set up a traceability system that would help the govenrment identify the fish subject to the injunction. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the need to set up this system does not constitute a changed circumstance that would permit the modification of the PI.