Respondents challenging the International Trade Administration’s application of parallel antidumping and countervailing duties, in the AD and CV investigations of magnesia carbon bricks from China and Mexico, had asked the Court of International Trade to stay proceedings in their action pending an expected ruling on the issue from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Noting that it has already held the practice of applying simultaneous AD and CV duties to be impermissible, the CIT agreed to stay and consolidate the multiple plaintiffs’ actions until the CAFC rules on the CIT’s decision in GPX International Tires et. al v. U.S. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 08/09/10 news, 10080911, for BP summary of CIT's ruling in GPX International Tire Corp. et al v. U.S., disallowing the ITA’s simultaneous application of AD and CV duties.) (Slip Op. 11-38, dated 04/14/11)

Following a second remand over the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates from China (used in pool chlorination), covering the period December 16, 2004 - May 31, 2006, domestic producers challenged the use of a by-product offset for chlorine gas, which effectively reduced the Chinese exporter’s costs and AD margin. The Court of International Trade upheld by-product offsets for chlorine gas recovered in the production of subject merchandise, but ruled against the use of a by-product offset for chlorine gas recovered during liquefaction of chlorine, since it derives from the production of non-subject merchandise and is not required in the production of subject merchandise. The CIT therefore remanded this aspect of the determination to the International Trade Administration for recalculation. (Slip Op. 11-41, dated 04/15/11)

In the February 2006 -January 2007 antidumping duty administrative review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, the International Trade Administration assigned unreviewed companies the rates they had been assigned in the earlier investigation. For the second remand, ITA changed course and assigned the unreviewed companies the zero rate it had calculated for the mandatory respondents (the firms selected by the agency as representative sample firms), and the court has now upheld this result. (Slip Op. 11-39, dated 04/14/11)

Seeking to challenge its failure to be awarded status as an affected domestic producer (ADP), which would entitle it to distributions of antidumping duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA aka Byrd Amendment), Giorgio Foods, Inc. sued to attempt to force the International Trade Commission to provide documents from the AD injury investigations on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia. The ITC argued that “Giorgio was not a petitioner in the investigations and did not express support for the petition in its questionnaire response,” and thus did not qualify as an ADP, but the company alleged that documents from the investigation, as yet not divulged by the agency, would show it had supported the petition. The Court of International Trade ruled in favor of the domestic grower, ordering the ITC to provide the full set of documents considered directly or indirectly in the investigation. (Slip Op. 11-27, dated 03/08/11, public version posted 04/08/11)

On April 4, 2011, the Court of International Trade agreed to consolidate for trial, two actions¹ on whether approximately 70 entries of peanut products imported into the U.S. from Mexico between December 2005 and October 2006 were entitled to preferential duty treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

In a previous remand order on the final results of the December 2006 -- November 2007 antidumping administrative review of certain welded stainless steel pipes from Korea, the Court of International Trade granted the International Trade Administration’s request for a voluntary remand to assess the use of steel specifications in addition to steel grades in its cost analysis, and also directed the agency to reconsider its attempt to use quarterly indexing to derive average costs for steel components in a period of strongly fluctuating nickel values.

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Korean steel producer/exporters, challenged the ITA’s use of zeroing¹ in the August 2004 -- July 2005 antidumping duty administrative review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. Between the review’s preliminary results and the March 20, 2007 final results determination, the ITA ceased the practice of zeroing in AD investigations but maintained it in reviews. When Dongbu and Union challenged the ITA’s continued use of zeroing in AD administrative reviews, the Court of International Trade upheld the practice, and Union appealed.

An importer of scaffolding pieces sought to exclude its products from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders in circular welded carbon quality steel pipe from China, citing an exclusion for “finished scaffolding” that the International Trade Administration wrote into the AD and CV duty orders. However, after a voluntary remand the ITA again found the scaffolding imported by Constantine N. Polites & Co. to be covered by the orders. In response to the importer’s renewed challenge, the Court of International Trade issued a second remand instructing the ITA to provide evidence to support its assertion that “finished scaffolding” means scaffolding kits, or provide a definition. (Slip Op. 11-31, dated 03/23/11)

In a case involving furniture producer Standard Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s claim that it was entitled to potentially collect Byrd Amendment distributions of antidumping duties collected under the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China prior to the 2006 repeal of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Byrd Amendment), the Court of International Trade ruled that Standard has the right to amend its complaints to make them uniform and to take additional time to prepare responses to the government’s arguments. Standard is arguing that the government acted inconsistently, and that various features of the Byrd Amendment are unconstitutional. (Slip Op. 11-32, dated 03/23/11)

On February 14, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision upholding the calculation methods of the International Trade Administration in a court remand over an antidumping administrative review of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand for the period March 2006 - February 2007 (the decision upheld the ITA’s accounting for duty drawbacks on imported components, among other issues). Subsequently the parties to the litigation filed motions to proceed with liquidation of the merchandise, indicating no party intended to appeal the matter further. However, the Court of International Trade ruled that it could not modify the injunction against liquidation that is still in place, until the CAFC formally issues its mandate. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 02/18/11 news, 11021817, for BP summary of CAFC decision upholding duty drawback adjustments for Saha Thai.) (Slip Op. 11-29, dated 03/22/11)