Adverse facts available applied to Hyundai's reporting of parts in an antidumping duty administrative review on Korean power transformers are still warranted despite a previous court remand, the Commerce Department said in the results of a remand published Aug. 15 (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00108). Commerce said that although facts available are not justifiable with respect to Hyundai’s reporting of parts and components, it will still apply total adverse facts available to Hyundai.
Ben Perkins
Ben Perkins, Assistant Editor, is a reporter with International Trade Today and its sister publications, Trade Law Daily and Export Compliance Daily, where he covers sanctions, court rulings, and other international trade issues. He previously worked as a trade analyst for a Washington D.C. advisory firm. Ben holds a B.A. in English from the University of New Hampshire and an M.A. in International Relations from American University. Ben joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2022.
The International Trade Commission overvalued the importance of price in its determination of injury in an antidumping duty investigation on methionine from Spain and Japan, a Spanish exporter told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief that seeks to toss out the ITC's determination of material injury (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).
The five-year statute of limitations for fraudulent civil penalty enforcement action in the Court of International Trade might begin to run from the date the government is sufficiently on notice rather than on the date of documented confirmation, Greenlight Organic, Inc. and Parambir Singh Aulakh argued in an Aug. 12 motion for an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to decide the statute of limitations issue (U.S. v. Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh, CIT #17-00031).
The Commerce Department erred in a scope ruling regarding antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheets from China, importer Valeo argued to the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief (Valeo North America v. U.S., CIT #21-00581). The brief supports a March motion for judgment that challenged the ruling by Commerce that determined Valeo’s imported heat-treated T-series aluminum sheet is covered by the scope of the AD/CVD orders.
The Court of International Trade agreed with the government that a nitrogen oxide sensor probe for diesel engines should be classified as an instrument of chemical analysis under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9027, rather than an instrument of measurement under heading 9026 (Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00026). In an Aug. 12 opinion, Judge Jane Restani ruled in favor of the government's March 8 cross-motion for summary judgment (see 2203140007).
The government notified the Court of International Trade that it has inadvertently liquidated bifacial solar panels following a CIT order in December that suspended liquidation. The government told the court that CBP is taking steps to correct the mistake and that it has communicated with the plaintiffs and non-parties affected by the liquidations.
CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings abused its discretion when it overturned a determination of evasion on administrative review, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) said in an Aug. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT # 22-00236). AEFTC is challenging the results of the administrative review that reversed an earlier CBP finding that Kingtom Aluminio had evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic (see 2208090018). AEFTC argued that the results of the administrative review "undermined the evidence collected at the on-site verification and accepted Kingtom’s proffered reconciliation of its production data," which CBP had previously rejected. AEFTC asked the court to remand the matter to CBP.
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge, shouldn't be allowed reconsideration at the Court of International Trade following the dismissal of their case challenging the Commerce Department's failure to conduct verification in an antidumping duty investigation due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the government said in an Aug. 11 response motion (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
Imported carbon steel tubing lined with epoxy coating is properly classified in the tariff schedule as steel tubing, not insulating fittings, because testing shows the tubing does not meet a specific electrical resistance threshold, the government said in its Aug. 11 cross-motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, CIT # 20-00074).
CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate recently upheld on review a finding that AA Metals evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, it said in a decision following an Enforce and Protect Act administrative review. AA Metal submitted the request for review in May after CBP issued an April determination of evasion (see 2204070042). The investigation followed a March 2020 EAPA allegation by Texarkana Aluminum against AA Metals, alleging that AA Metals entered common alloy aluminum sheets of Chinese origin into the U.S. via transshipment through Turkey to evade AD/CVD duties on aluminum from China.