The Commerce Department didn't properly apply the "proper statutory test for affiliation" between antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. and one of its customers, BNK Steel Co., the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 13 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden said that Commerce, as part of the 2019-20 AD review of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, erred in basing its finding of affiliation between the two companies on a single shared human resources manager and the mere speculation that there could have been other ties between the companies.
The U.S. Judicial Conference and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit approved a series of increases to various national and local court fees to account for inflation, the appellate court announced. The new fees, which take effect Dec. 1, include an increase in the attorney admission fee, from $238, which currently includes a $50 local court fee, to $300, including a $101 local court fee. Docketing fees for petitions for review and for mandamus jumped from $500 to $600, and a fee for search of court records will rise from $32 to $34.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer URE NSP Corp. moved to dismiss its case at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's miscalculating of its antidumping duty payments on solar cells from Taiwan. The importer said in its complaint that CBP ignored its prior disclosure payments, then partially denied a protest seeking those funds (see 2308140010). The company asked the court to order a refund of about $311,00 plus interest for overpayment of duties (URE NSP Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00154).
Chinese tire exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, in the alternative, sever the consolidated action for the two companies. The exporters said that the "good cause" prompting this action is that both exporters are currently adherent to the word limit for a single brief even though both of their cases rest on entirely unique fact patterns (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).
The U.S. challenged exporter Risen Energy Co.'s motion to amend its complaint to add a challenge to the Commerce Department's decision to treat Article 26(2) Tax Exemption Program as countervailable. Filing a brief at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 9, the government said the motion to amend "is futile, and thus lacks merit" since Risen "failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to this claim and none of the limited exceptions to the exhaustion requirement apply" (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00153).
The Commerce Department's decision to include importer Precision Components' goods in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China cuts against the "clear language of the scope" and Commerce's "historic treatment of the scope," Precision said in a Nov. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).
President Donald Trump didn't clearly misconstrue the statute when he revoked a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Nov. 13. Granting the president wider discretion to make modifications to Section 201 duties, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said that the statute -- Section 2254(b)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1930 -- allows for trade-restricting modifications, as opposed to only trade-liberalizing ones.
The EU General Court on Nov. 8 rejected a Russian CEO's application to annul his sanctions designation. The court said the European Council properly laid out a statement of reasons for the sanctions decision, adding that the council "adduced a set of sufficiently specific, precise and consistent indicia capable of demonstrating" that Dmitry Mazepin "is a leading businessperson involved in a sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian Government."
The EU General Court on Nov. 8 rejected Mikalai Varabei's application to annul his sanctions listing under the EU's Belarus sanctions regime. Varabei was challenging the European Council's finding that his activities in various Belarussian economic sectors show that he benefits from President Aleksandr Lukashenko's regime.