Jacob Kopnick

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

The Commerce Department switched to finding the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review using a weighted average of the respondents' rates rather than a simple average, in Oct. 13 remand results at the Court of International Trade. Still defending its use of the simple average in other hypothetical circumstances, Commerce nevertheless made the switch to weighted average, using CBP entry data for one of the respondents (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00027).

The International Trade Commission granted four Curtis Mallet-Prevost lawyers access to a safeguard proceeding on behalf of LG Electronics, potentially ending a dispute at the Court of International Trade over denied access (see 2110130037) (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520). The ITC's one-page letter does not address larger issues in the case, such as the commission's power to deny access at all

The Commerce Department found that a countervailing duty investigation respondent's U.S. customers did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in the investigation's final determination despite the Chinese government's continued failure to provide information, indicating a potential shift in how the agency will approach how it verifies non-use of the program.

Counsel for LG Electronics did not prove that the International Trade Commission's decision to deny attorney access to confidential information in a safeguard proceeding constitutes a final agency action, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Even if there existed a "speculative future basis for jurisdiction under prior case law," the LGE lawyers would have to show that the ITC secretary's actions resulted in ineffective or inadequate representation that resulted in an adverse determination, the brief said (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 12 sustained the Commerce Department's application of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. After previously remanding Commerce's application of AFA for lack of substantial evidence, Judge Miller Baker sustained Commerce's remand results after Commerce switched out the grounds on which it based its AFA finding.

Hyundai Steel Co. signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an AD review dropping a particular market situation adjustment to Hyundai's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test, in Oct. 12 comments at the Court of International Trade. However, Hyundai, one of the mandatory respondents in the 24th administrative review of the AD duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea, went after Commerce's decision to still hold that a PMS exists for hot-rolled coil -- a key input of the subject merchandise -- even though it dropped the PMS adjustment in the sales-below-cost test. The court held that both the PMS adjustment and the PMS finding itself were unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law, Hyundai pointed out (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

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

The Commerce Department is sticking by its preferred methodology for determining surrogate financial ratios in an antidumping duty case following a remand from the Court of International Trade, the department said in Oct. 12 remand results submitted to the court. After CIT remanded the case to Commerce for its failure to address the concerns of the mandatory respondent, the agency returned with a more thorough backing of its surrogate financial ratio decision that it believes adequately addresses the respondent's concerns (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-00114).

The Department of Justice opposed the bid by plaintiffs in an antidumping duty challenge for a separate briefing schedule apart from a briefing on a voluntary remand requested by the defense, in an Oct. 12 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs, led by Pirelli Tyre Co., feel as though the voluntary remand will not touch on the issues they raised by bringing their case to CIT, so they want a separate briefing schedule on their case. DOJ argues that this is "both inefficient and likely to lead to confusion of the issues in this case" (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00115).