Jacob Kopnick

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 needs to reconsider its decision to deny an antidumping duty review respondent a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment related to the company's home market sales, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion. Seeing as the decision was based on a factual finding not backed by enough evidence and a second finding that is "vague and conclusory," Commerce needs to take another look at the issue, Judge Timothy Stanceu said.

The Commerce Department can reduce an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of their Section 232 duties paid, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 20 opinion. Commerce also doesn't have to notify the respondent that it intends to reduce the U.S. price by the amount of the Section 232 duties paid since notice and comment procedures don't apply to antidumping administrative procedures, Judge Jane Restani said.

The Commerce Department's decision to find affiliation between antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company and some of its Thai customers was not backed by enough evidence, the respondent argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Relying on information from the petitioner that is "vague and confusing" and not always connected to the merchandise under review, Commerce made an errant call, the complaint said. Further, the agency's decision to hit Saha Thai with partial adverse facts available based on its non-cooperation in the review was not supported by law, the company said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #21-00627).

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

Although the Commerce Department could get a more accurate dumping rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping reviews by selecting more mandatory respondents, it has no legal requirement to do so, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion. Sustaining Commerce's remand results, Judge Richard Eaton said that the agency properly excluded one of the two mandatory respondents' zero percent dumping rate and merely applied the other respondent's rate to all others in the review. The court also upheld Commerce's selection of surrogate data in the face of the plaintiffs' challenge.

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

The Commerce Department properly fixed an error in its liquidation instructions, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion sustaining the agency's remand results in an antidumping review. Fixing the name of one of the mandatory respondents that received its own rate in the review, Commerce's remand allowed the respondent -- Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. -- to receive the proper rate on its entries.

Antidumping respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group continued to argue that assigning it the China-wide entity rate is an unfair application of adverse facts available in Dec. 16 comments on the Commerce Department's remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Notably, though, Jinqiao Flooring did not mention a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that found that China-wide rates can still be based on AFA even if no members of the countrywide entity were found to be uncooperative. Nevertheless, the company claimed it should be granted a separate dumping rate and that substantial evidence does not back Commerce's contention that it is de facto controlled by the Chinese government (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S., CIT #18-00191).

Five Republican Senators filed an amicus brief on Dec. 15 with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to take up a case over the limits of the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. The brief, signed by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Bill Cassidy, R-La.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., argues against a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion spurning time limits imposed in the statute. The time limits are crucial to ensuring that "Congress makes the major policy decisions regarding the regulation of foreign commerce," the lawmakers said.