The Commerce Department, on remand at the Court of International Trade, incorporated information from antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. regarding its service-related revenues and expenses, slashing the exporter's dumping rate from 16.13% to 4.69%. Commerce solicited this information from the company after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told the agency to let Hyundai supplement the record (Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., CIT # 16-00054).
A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Commerce Department improperly used Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping because the agency violated statistical assmptions inherent to the test, SeAH Steel told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the opening brief of its appeal. While Commerce justified its use of the test because it used a whole population, not a sample, SeAH said the academic literature shows the d test was meant to be used as a measure of effect size only when the data comes from samples with "normal distributions, with roughly equal variance, and a sufficient number of data-points" (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department can use a transaction-specific margin as an adverse facts available rate, the government argued in a July 24 reply brief at the Court of International Trade supporting its motion for reconsideration. While exporter Lumber Liquidators argued that the statute only allows a calculated dumping margin and not one based solely on a single sales transaction, the U.S. said this interpretation cuts against the law's plain language, which says that when Commerce uses AFA, it can use any margin from any segment of the proceeding (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
The Court of International Trade in a July 25 order dismissed an antidumping suit brought by exporter Okechamp for failure to file a complaint within the time allotted. Okechamp brought the case to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands. The trade court said the case was tossed for lack or prosectuion (Okechamp v. United States, CIT # 23-00134).
The Commerce Department said that, after reviewing the facts, ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic., an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not a cross-owned input supplier of goods primarily dedicated to the production of downstream products. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on July 24, Commerce changed its tune regarding why the input in question, steel scrap, was mainly dedicated to the production of downstream steel goods as part of the 2018 CVD review on steel concrete rebar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's defense of its decisions to impose lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs "makes a mockery of a detailed law in which Congress circumscribed what USTR may do and on what basis," four administrative and trade law professors said in an amicus brief. Filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 24, the professors said USTR did not have the statutory authority to impose the retaliatory duties on $320 billion worth of Chinese goods because the statute did not allow retaliation to serve as the basis for the duties, nor did it allow the drastically larger price tag (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Michael Bowen, former international trade attorney at Crowell & Moring, has joined Canadian Solar (USA) as senior counsel in trade compliance, Bowen confirmed to Trade Law Daily. He joined Crowell in 2021 after working at the Commerce Department for four years as an international trade analyst. Bowen said that he is "thrilled to join Canadian Solar's mission to foster sustainable development and to create a better and cleaner earth for future generations."
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.