Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department was wrong to deny antidumping duty review respondent Noksel's claimed duty drawback adjustment due to the fact that its inward processing certificate (IPC) wasn't closed, plaintiff Noksel Celik Borun Sanayi told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 23 brief. Noksel argued that it properly demonstrated that it qualifies for the full duty drawback adjustment since all imports and exports under the IPC have been completed and it is no longer permitted by the Turkish government to add import or export information (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00140).

The Commerce Department's actions in calculating the all-others rate in an antidumping investigation were "patently unreasonable," plywood importers argued in Dec. 29 comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting their arguments to the Court of International Trade, the importers, led by Taraca Pacific, went after Commerce's method for finding the all-others rate when the agency itself recognized that the petition separate rate application rates the all-others rate was based on was only "to some extent" representative of the separate rate plaintiffs' dumping margin (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00002).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importers found to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China argue for a greater due process rights in evasion investigations than Congress deemed fit to provide, the evasion alleger Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood said in a Dec. 30 brief at the Court of International Trade supporting CBP's Enforce and Protect Act finding. Responding to a motion for judgment from the importers, led by American Pacific Plywood, the coalition said that the statute doesn't require the disclosure of confidential information during EAPA investigations (American Pacific Plywood, Inc. et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03914).

The Commerce Department violated the law when it initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation into quartz surface products from India since it didn't have the requisite industry support, importer M S International told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Dec. 20 opening brief. Urging the appellate court to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that found that Commerce legally interpreted what constitutes a "producer" of QSPs, MSI argued that Commerce erred by excluding fabricators from the industry support calculation (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1077).

Sufficient evidence exists to back the Commerce Department's contentions on a countervailing duty review of wood mouldings and millwork products from China, both the Department of Justice and CVD petitioner Coalition of American Millwork Producers said in a pair of reply briefs. The defendant and defendant-intervenor pushed the court to accept Commerce's arguments that it properly countervailed respondent Yinfeng's purchases of acrylic polymer and alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, along with its benchmarks for the provision of plywood and sawn wood for less than adequate remuneration and land-use rights for LTAR (Fujian Yinfeng Imp & Exp Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00088).

The Commerce Department didn't follow the Court of International Trade's instructions when it continued to find the all-others rate in an antidumping duty investigation by averaging a respondent's zero percent margin and the high China-wide rate, the consolidated plaintiffs, led by Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export, argued in a Dec. 29 brief. The plaintiffs blasted Commerce's justification for the move -- that it had a limited record for calculating the separate rate respondents' actual rates -- since "this deficiency is of Commerce's own making" (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00002).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 sustained a remand redetermination from the Commerce Department that reverses the outcome of Commerce's countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia, which had resulted in a CV duty order in 2020, but post-remand finds no countervailable subsidization.

The Court of International Trade erred when it said that there was no legal authority for expedited countervailing duty reviews, appellants told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in their opening brief. The appellants, led by the Canadian government, argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department in finding that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold a lower court ruling establishing that the Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production (FOP) data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis in an antidumping duty case, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 22 brief. DOJ said that the Court of International Trade correctly held that Commerce's requirement for CONNUM-specific reporting isn't subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, as the plaintiff-appellant Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial argues, but rather an exercise of Commerce's discretion (Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import & Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2205).