Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department says total adverse facts available is not warranted in an antidumping duty investigation on silicon metal from Malaysia since mandatory respondent PMB Silicon did not actively withhold information, the agency said in a June 16 memorandum issued alongside its final affirmative determination in the investigation.

Steel exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret will appeal a June 16 Court of International Trade decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 21 notice of appeal. In the decision, Judge Jane Restani sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping administrative review of circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey. The remand results dropped any adjustments made to the sales-below-cost test relating to a particular market situation (see 2106170026). Restani said that PMS adjustments are only allowed when calculating normal value based on constructed value, as opposed to normal value based on home market sales (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00015).

Two steel importers, voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, want refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on imports of alloy steel since the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security published a Section 232 exclusion with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule code, they said in a June 18 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Voestalpine and Bilstein say the HTS error was only remedied after the imports had been liquidated and that no protest option was available to apply the exclusions after liquidation (voestalpine USA LLC et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).

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

The Commerce Department's denial of third country sales data for evasion of antidumping duties in establishing normal value in an antidumping duty case lacks proper evidence, shrimp exporter Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited said in a brief filed June 18 with the Court of International Trade. ZASF said that there was no evidence in the record to back Commerce's reliance on CBP's determination in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that ZASF's shrimp imports from Vietnam evaded antidumping duties from India (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited et al v. United States, CIT #21-00031).

No serious gaps in the record exist proving that plywood producer Shelter Forest did not develop its plywood after the Commerce Department issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood products from China, the Department of Justice said in a brief June 16. Contradicting comments on Commerce's remand results from petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood, DOJ backed Commerce's remand decision to reverse its affirmative determination that Shelter Forest's plywood circumvented the AD/CV duties.

The Commerce Department cannot construe the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy as a de jure specific domestic subsidy in a countervailing duty case on ripe olives from Spain, the Court of International Trade said in a June 17 opinion. Finding for the second time that Commerce’s interpretation of the statute is contrary to law, Judge Gary Katzmann found that the agency cannot permissibly find that the CAP was a countervailable specific domestic subsidy since “there is no uniform treatment across the agricultural sector in the provision of benefits.”

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

A Court of International Trade decision eliminating the extension of Section 232 duties to steel and aluminum "derivatives" has formally been appealed by the U.S. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 17 docketing notice. The CIT ruling, decided by a three-judge panel at the trade court, found that President Donald Trump violated statutory time limits when expanding the tariffs to the derivative products. Importer PrimeSource Building Products successfully argued that the tariff expansion was announced well after the 105-day deadline for tariff action following the initial Commerce Department report that led to the initial imposition of the Section 232 duties in 2018 (see 2104050049) (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, Federal Circuit, #21-2066).

Dominican aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio SRL should not be allowed to intervene in a Court of International Trade case in which it is alleged to be involved in a transshipment scheme to avoid antidumping duties, the Enforce and Protect Act case alleger Ta Chen International said in a June 16 brief. Although it made the covered merchandise, Kingtom did not import it through evasion, Ta Chen said.