Jacob Kopnick

Antidumping duty respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes and Pipes Ind. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade over the Commerce Department's denial of part of its responses in an AD administrative review. The company challenges Commerce's rejection of its questionnaire responses for being untimely filed for being nearly two hours late, despite COVID-19-related technical difficulties. The decision was especially egregious since Commerce granted itself lengthy extensions to meet deadlines in the review, the company said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00587).

The Commerce Department erred in using the Cohen's d test to identify potential masked dumping in an antidumping investigation, Ashley Furniture argued in a Nov. 19 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Tapping a recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that questioned the validity of the standardized mean difference test, Ashley Furniture argued that Commerce's use of the test in the AD investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea rests on the same faulty assumptions that the Federal Circuit already rejected (Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #32-00283).

Goods coming from a non-market economy may be denied first sale valuation due to the market-distorting policies of the non-market economy, the Department of Justice said in a Nov. 19 brief filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Arguing the appellate court should uphold a Court of International Trade ruling questioning the use of first sale on goods from NMEs, DOJ pushed back against plaintiff Meyer Corp.'s contention that NME policies cannot be included in "any non-market influences" -- any of which the U.S. can use to deny an importer the use of first sale. Notably, DOJ did not whole-heartedly embrace the notion that goods coming from an NME are immediately disqualified from receiving first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation, U.S. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

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

The Court of International Trade permitted a group of U.S. agricultural trade associations to file an amicus brief in a case over the International Trade Commission's injury determination in an investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. After facing pushback from the U.S. and the petitioners, J.R. Simplot Company and The Mosaic Company, Judge Stephen Vaden said the amici "represent the actual users of that fertilizer, the farmers, i.e., those who ultimately pay the price of the tariffs imposed" (OCP S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00219)

The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a Court of International Trade case over steel exporter Mirror Metals' denied Section 232 exclusion requests, finding that it is appropriate to reconsider the exclusion denials. The case concerns 45 exclusion requests for flat-rolled stainless steel products that are supposedly used in large-scale architectural projects. The requests saw objections from three domestic manufacturers, leading to Commerce denying all 45 exclusion bids. The leading reason for the denials given by Commerce was the availability of the domestic capacity to make the products in question (Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00144).

The Department of Justice urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold a lower court ruling denying a group of domestic steel manufacturers the right to intervene in Section 232 exclusion denial cases, in a Nov. 17 brief, arguing that none of the producers has a legally protectable interest in the proceedings. DOJ said that the steel makers' economic interests are insufficient to warrant intervention in the cases since they are "indirect and contingent," seeing as the companies argue that their interest in the exclusions derives from "sales opportunities."

That an antidumping review respondent lied in its advertisements about what its goods were made of does not warrant the application of adverse facts available, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 18 decision. Judge Miller Baker said that while the respondent's advertising in the U.S. is a "complete fraud from bark to core," the Commerce Department must derive the company's dumping rate from its actual costs. The judge also held that Commerce does not have the jurisdiction to "police false advertising violations" under its antidumping laws.

The Commerce Department's surrogate financial ratio calculation in an antidumping duty case, while better explained, is not the most accurate calculation and thus does not comply with the law or the Court of International Trade's order, plaintiff Ancientree Cabinet Co. argued in a Nov. 12 brief at CIT. Further, the particular methodology Commerce used also doesn't jibe with the agency's past methodology and reasoning in other AD reviews, the brief said (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-00114).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed a federal district court's ruling which tossed a case seeking payment from the U.S. over damages caused from a ship delay in Delaware, holding that the district court could in fact hear the case. The appellate court, in a Nov. 16 decision, said that the court had jurisdiction since the contract between the U.S. and ship owner Nederland Shipping Corporation was a maritime contract and the law giving the U.S. cover for detaining the ship waived sovereign immunity (Nederland Shipping Corporation, et al. v. United States, 3rd Cir. #20-2269).