The standard for whether a surrogate financial statement is considered publicly available so it can be used in an antidumping duty proceeding says that "interested parties may independently access the information," the government said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00283).
None of the Court of International Trade's conclusions upholding the use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping address the Commerce Department's "core error" of using a 0.8 threshold "when the statistical assumptions of normality, variance, and size have not been proven," thermal paper exporters led by Koehler Paper argued. In a reply brief at the trade court, Koehler said CIT's recent decisions in Stupp Corp. v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S. "do nothing to mitigate the fundamental flaws" of using the d test (Koehler Paper, et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).
The Commerce Department properly used financial statements from Indian company Sundram as the source of surrogate financial data in the antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Oman, despite evidence the company received countervailable subsidies, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After Commerce winnowed potential surrogate companies from 11, the two remaining companies -- Hi-Tech Fastener Manufacturer and Sundram -- received subsidies. Since Sundram's data was contemporaneous with the investigation period and Hi-Tech's was not, Commerce legally went with Sundram, the government said in its reply brief (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).
CBP did not adequately justify treating the same evidence differently when it reversed a recent finding on aluminum extrusions from China, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee told the Court of International Trade. In CBP's remand decision that reversed its finding that six companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on the extrusions, the industry organization said CBP used most, if not all, the same evidence "without providing a rational explanation" (H&E Home Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).
The Commerce Department extended the deadline to issue its final determinations in the anti-circumvention inquiries concerning solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, until Aug. 17. In a memo dated April 26, Jose Rivera, international trade compliance analyst at Commerce, said that "good cause exists" to give the agency more time, including the "numerous complex methodological issues for which Commerce requires more time to analyze." Rivera added that the agency received around 20 briefs from interested parties in the inquiries.
The Commerce Department legally found that financial statements submitted by antidumping duty petitioners from Indian mattress maker Emirates Sleep were publicly available, the petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, argued in comments backing Commerce's remand results at the Court of International Trade. While the trade court found that the agency did not adequately explain whether the statements were publicly available, Commerce properly explained on remand that they were via the Indian government's Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Zauba Corp., a web service that takes information on Indian businesses that is all a matter of public record, Brooklyn Bedding said (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00283).
The Enforce and Protect Act case involving Aspects Furniture International is not one of a lack of cooperation, "but instead one of 'too much' cooperation for CBP to handle, so much so that CBP chose to abuse its discretion" in ignoring the record completely, Aspects told the Court of International Trade. Submitting opposing comments on CBP's remand results, the bedroom furniture importer said CBP made "general, conclusory" explanations of its evasion decision based on the fact that it saw employees of Aspects' Chinese satellite office, Aspects Nantong, destroying information (Aspects Furniture International v. United States, CIT # 20-03824).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should refuse to consolidate a challenge to the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia with a challenge to the commission's negative injury determination on the same goods from Brazil, the U.S. argued. The government claimed that there are no overlapping issues in the proceedings and that "consolidation would complicate briefing as well as the Court's review of the determinations." The Australia and Brazil cases challenge different determinations, so the present dispute is not the same as respondents and petitioners making opposing arguments on the same Commerce Department dumping margin, the U.S. said. The government was joined in its opposition to consolidation by U.S. steel companies Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics, SSAB Enterprises and U.S. Steel Corp. (BlueScope Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00353).
The Commerce Department did not adequately explain its finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, was a cross-owned input supplier of primarily dedicated inputs, the Court of International Trade ruled. Sending back the 2018 administrative review of the CVD order on rebar from Turkey, Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce erroneously relied on prior segments of the review and a past CIT decision to say that "scrap" is an input primarily dedicated to the production of downstream steel products.