The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to modify antidumping duty respondent Suzano's cost of production to exclude certain derivative expenses from the financial expense ratio in Nov. 14 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. The combination of Suzano's audited financial statements and quarterly earnings (QE) releases together show that the derivative losses are not extraordinary but instead represent financing expenses related to Suzano's normal operations and thus should not be excluded from the ratio, Commerce said (Suzano S.A. v. United States, CIT #21-00069).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 judgment dismissed Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest case against its former counsel for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Concurrently filing a confidential opinion but a public order, Judge Gary Katzmann said the plaintiffs can refile under Section 1581(c). The case was originally filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Amsted Rail v. U.S., CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
US Steel Tells CIT About 'Developments' in CAFC Case Over Intervention in Section 232 Exclusion Case
U.S. Steel Corp., defendant-intervenor in a case over a denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 14. The notice pointed to "developments" in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different challenge to Section 232 exclusion request denials. Those "developments" reference U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion for rehearing (see 2210250056), in which it argued that the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent. The defendant-intervenor alerted the trade court to these developments "as they may result in a change to Federal Circuit law regarding the rights of parties to intervene in actions before the Court" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
The Commerce Department admitted that it was "improper" to inflate a Mexican labor wage rate using Brazilian consumer price index (CPI) data in an antidumping duty investigation. Submitting its remand results on Nov. 14 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reopened the record and added Mexican wage rate data. The agency also found on remand that exporter Guangzhou Ulix Industrial & Trading Co. met the burden for achieving separate rate status. The result of the remand is a zero percent dumping margin for respondents Ningbo Master International Trade Co., Guangzhou Jingye Machinery Co. and now Ulix (New American Keg v. United States, CIT #20-00008).
The Commerce Department stuck by its use of a simple average in the denominatory calculation of the Cohen's d coefficient -- a part of the test to root out "masked" dumping -- in Nov. 10 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Responding to an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit telling the agency to justify its departure from the academic literature about how to calculate the Cohen's d denominator, Commerce said that the literature actually supports the use of a simple average when sampling is not used (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, CIT Consol. #15-00213).
The American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance in a Nov. 7 statement expressed its disappointment with the Commerce Department's final results in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, covering entries in 2019-2021. The group is weighing legal action over the review, Politico reported. In the review, Commerce found a zero percent antidumping margin for 16 companies (see 2211090008).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade does not have jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction -- to hear a case over whether former counsel for Amsted Rail Co. should be barred from certain antidumping and countervailing proceedings, the U.S. told the court. Concurrently filing an opposition to ARC's motion for a preliminary injunction, which would bar ARC's former counsel, Daniel Pickard and law firm Buchanan Ingersoll, from participating in the proceedings, and a motion to dismiss, the U.S. said that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in the matter (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).
Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit at the Court of International Trade invoked three court decisions -- two from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- in a Nov. 9 notice of supplemental authority. The plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., said the cases were discussed during the hearing on the issue held at the trade court (Amsted Rail v. ITC , CIT #22-00307).