Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department was justified in continuing to apply total adverse facts available in an antidumping case after a Court of International Trade remand since the respondent failed to accurately report control number-specific U.S. sales and factors of production data when it could have "easily" done so, case petitioner Catfish Farmers of America said in a July 9 reply brief. Doubling down on Commerce's arguments, the catfish farmers said the court should sustain the remand results in the case over the final results of the 14th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Commerce Department must further explain its use of a statistical test when using its differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty investigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 15 opinion. Partially remanding an antidumping investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea, the Federal Circuit questioned Commerce's use of the "Cohen's d test" to discover targeted or masked dumping.

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

The Commerce Department will only partially apply adverse facts available for sales a diamond sawblade exporter made to its U.S. affiliate, which used a first-in-first-out methodology to keep track of its country of origin data when calculating the exporter's antidumping rate, it said in remand results filed by the agency July 13. The filing comes to the Court of International Trade after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit left it up to the trade court to determine if a further remand was needed. The Federal Circuit held that a remand was appropriate for Commerce to determine if it could disregard the exporter's U.S. sales using the FIFO methodology (Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, CIT #17-00167).

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

The Commerce Department wants a partial remand of its final determination in a countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia, to reconsider whether it erroneously identified an upstream subsidy in the case as an export subsidy. In a July 9 motion for partial remand in the Court of International Trade, the government defense said that it wants the chance to review this determination to see if an error was committed and to potentially recalculate the resulting countervailing duty rate for the plaintiff in the case, PT. Kenertec Power System, which received the all-other respondents rate in the investigation (PT. Kenertec Power System v. United States, CIT #20-03687).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade ruling dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties, for improper jurisdiction, in a July 14 opinion. The Federal Circuit found that TR International Trading Company, which filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision, could have instead challenged a denied protest under 1581(a) or a scope ruling under 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable.

The president may impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day timeframe for action set out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 13 ruling. Overturning a lower court ruling, the Federal Circuit found that the underlying law's deadline for the president to take "action" can refer to a "plan of action" carried out over a period of time following the 105-day deadline. That authority is not unlimited, though, in that modifications must be related to the underlying reasoning for the tariffs and those reasons can't be "stale," CAFC said.

The Court of International Trade on July 12 upheld the Commerce Department's pick of Romania over Malaysia as a surrogate country in an antidumping case, but sent back to the agency the resulting financial ratio calculation of a Romanian company. Since Commerce failed to address the concerns of mandatory respondent Ancientree Cabinets, Judge Gary Katzmann directed Commerce to reconsider Ancientree's objections. Other aspects of the investigation under contention, namely the selection of Romania over Malaysia and Commerce's picks for product input surrogate values, were upheld by Katzmann.

A group of surety associations should not be able to argue against when the six-year limitations period begins for a customs bond due to their role in "abetting the new shipper bond disaster," a group of domestic agricultural goods producers said in a July 8 amicus brief in the Court of International Trade. The brief was filed to oppose the surety associations' motion to intervene in the lawsuit (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).