The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. In the remand results, Commerce reversed its decisions finding that a particular market situation existed for a key input of the OCTG products, and adjusting respondent Nexteel Co.'s reported costs for the value of non-prime products at their sales price and allocating the difference between the full production cost and market value of the non-prime products to the production costs of the prime OCTG.
Only an admissibility decision from CBP can stop a deemed exclusion from happening according to the law, importer Root Sciences argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a bid to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in its case over seized imports. The Court of International Trade previously ruled that it doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized the subject goods, finding that a seizure does not constitute an admissibility determination (see 2110070022). Root argued that this decision throws it into a "jurisdictional wilderness" and calls into question the validity of past decisions the trade court relied on for the notion that seizure before the expiration of the 30-day deemed exclusion window stops the running of the statutory deemed exclusion period (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).
The Commerce Department violated the law by hitting mandatory antidumping review respondent Grupo Simec with a total adverse facts available rate of 66.70%, non-selected respondent Grupo Acerero argued in an Aug. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The total AFA rate was disproportionate since Grupo Simec put forth "significant effort" in responding to Commerce's questionnaires, the brief said. Grupo Acerero further railed against its own 33.35% rate that was found by simply averaging the total AFA rate and a zero percent rate given to the other mandatory respondent (Grupo Acerero v. U.S., CIT #22-00230).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 29 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to reverse its finding that a particular market situation existed for an input of oil country tubular goods in South Korea. The court previously remanded the PMS determination as being unsupported by substantial evidence. The agency then flipped its finding, prompting Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves to sustain the remand results. Previously, the judge also sent back Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping, but since respondent SeAH Steel Corp. was given a de minimis dumping margin, the issue was moot.
The Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in an Aug. 29 nonprecedential opinion. Reversing the Court of International Trade's finding, judges Pauline Newman, Alvin Schall and Sharon Prost said Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate.
Rixon Rafael Moreno Oropeza, a Venezuelan national and businessman, was charged with making bribe payments and money laundering in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, DOJ announced. Per the indictment returned to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Moreno laundered the money made from inflated procurement contracts that were received by making bribes to senior executives at Petropiar -- a joint venture of Venezuela's state-owned energy company and an American oil company.
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., aren't seeking to relitigate the issue of whether the Commerce Department should have conducted on-site verification during its administrative review but merely trying to frame a newly available piece of evidence, the plaintiffs argued in an Aug. 25 brief. Responding to arguments from the U.S. and exporter Metalcam, the plaintiffs said it's the U.S. and Metalcam that are seeking to relitigate issues, particularly the point of whether the plaintiffs raised the issue administratively (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 26 opinion rejected the plaintiff-appellants' appeal seeking to establish that the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value. The appellate court previously rejected this claim in Hyundai Steel v. U.S. The appellants, led by American Cast Iron Pipe Company, sought to differentiate its case from Hyundai Steel by arguing that its case appeals an original investigation while the Hyundai Steel matter challenged an administrative review. The Federal Circuit failed to see how this would result in a different outcome and ruled against Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
The Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 25 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: