Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department wants another shot at considering 15 denied requests for exclusions from the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, it said in a Dec. 23 partial voluntary remand request at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's offer of reconsideration would cover only 15 of plaintiff NLMK Pennsylvania's 54 denied exclusion requests. Commerce's brief stated that counsel for NLMK did not indicate support for or opposition to the motion yet, but would oppose the agency's 150-day timeline for reconsidering the 15 exclusion requests (NLMK Pennsylvania v. U.S., CIT #21-00507).

The Commerce Department cannot apply adverse facts available to countervailing duty respondents over their customers' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, two Chinese exporters said in a Dec. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Citing 13 prior CIT decisions striking down Commerce's use of AFA in this way, the plaintiffs -- Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co. and Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co. -- said that the mandatory respondents showed they didn't use this program and that no evidence exists to the contrary (Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00599).

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).

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

The Commerce Department found that importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges are not subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, in Dec. 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, though it did so under protest (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).

Importer TR International Trading Company's imports of citric acid anhydrous is not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid from China, and CBP was wrong to liquidate the entries as such, TRI said in a Dec. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeking to get the court to rule against CBP's decision to liquidate its entries as being from China and not from India, TRI also blasted a Customs Laboratory's role in the process (TR International Trading Company v. United States, CIT #19-00217).

The Court of International Trade should reject exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s argument that the Commerce Department's calculation of financial ratios in an antidumping duty investigation is inconsistent with the agency's practice, defendant-intervenor American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance said in a Dec. 21 brief. In the reply to Ancientree's comments on Commerce's remand results, the AKCA also said Ancientree's argument against the accuracy of Commerce's financial ratio calculation is meritless because using more line items doesn't always result in more accuracy (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00114).

The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review over the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program is not backed by sufficient evidence, nonselected respondent Evolutions Flooring and Struxtur said in a Dec. 20 complaint. Filing at the Court of International Trade, the companies also contested Commerce's calculations for various inputs' less-than-adequate remuneration programs (Evolutions Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00591).

The Commerce Department continued to find in Dec. 21 remand results submitted to the Court of International trade that certain flanges are subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. Holding that the flanges from Crane Resistoflex have the physical characteristics described in the scope's first paragraph, the agency again defended its position that Crane's flanges are within the scope of the order. In line with CIT's instructions, though, Commerce also dropped its arguments defending its scope decision using the AD petition, ITC report and past scope determinations (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).