Jacob Kopnick

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).

The Commerce Department cannot deduct an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid, Tube Investments of India argued in a Dec. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While the trade court has repeatedly held that Commerce can make such an adjustment, TII nevertheless filed its complaint, holding that Commerce's decision to deduct Section 232 duties from the U.S. price is not backed by substantial evidence. Nithya Nagarajan of Husch Blackwell, counsel for TII, said that she believes the facts are different in the underlying administrative review and that the legal argument will be different, perhaps giving TII a shot that its results will be different this time around at CIT. The review in question is the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India (Tube Investments of India v. United States, CIT #21-00598).

Importer Gogo International evaded antidumping duties on diamond sawblades and parts from China, CBP found in its Enforce and Protect Act investigation determination. CBP determined that substantial evidence existed revealing that Gogo was transshipping the sawblades through Canada, primarily because Gogo and one of its affiliates did not submit any evidence contradicting this claim.

The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade, one contesting the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty review of MLWF from China and in a countervailing duty review of MLWF from China. The U.S. industry group said that Commerce erred in the AD review by deviating from its expected method when finding the final dumping margin for non-selected separate rate companies and that it erred in the CVD review by failing to properly construct benchmarks for veneers, fiberboard and paint, primer and stain (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00595) (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00596).

Building a rail line in Canada to take advantage of an exception to the Jones Act is "ordinarily permissible" under the law, logistics company Lineage Logistics Holdings said in a proposed amicus brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The Supreme Court of the U.S. said that liability cannot be imposed just because an individual or entity set up a transaction to avoid liability. Due to this holding, even if two shipping companies set up a Canadian rail line to avoid Jones Act penalties, it cannot then be held liable under the Jones Act, the brief said (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC, et al. v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

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

The Commerce Department didn't discredit its position on its ability to verify nonuse of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a recent countervailing duty review, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 brief. Responding to allegations from the lead plaintiff in a case over a CVD review, DOJ said that Commerce was able to verify nonuse -- despite key information from the Chinese government -- in a separate review due to the low number of the respondents' U.S. customers -- something that is not true of the review at issue.

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

The Commerce Department's findings with regard to the benchmark for plywood in a countervailing duty review are unsupported by record evidence, two Chinese exporters told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 23 complaint. The two plaintiffs -- Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) and Riverside Plywood -- also argued against Commerce's "legal and factual errors" over its calculation of benefits from the sale of veneers for less than adequate remuneration (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) v. U.S., CIT #21-00600).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's decision not to conduct an on-site verification in an antidumping review, the Department of Justice told the trade court in a Dec. 17 brief. Defending the COVID-era practice in yet another case, DOJ said that the plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Company, failed to raise the issue of on-site verification to Commerce during the proceeding, and that even if the court were to consider this challenge, the off-site verification procedures were consistent with the law and necessary, given the pandemic (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).