The International Trade Commission has discretion on when to cumulate imports in injury determinations, the commission said in its Oct. 19 opposition memo at the Court of International Trade. That discretion extended to the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Australia with other shipments in its sunset review of the antidumpingm duty orders on steel goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K., it said (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).
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 following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade should partially end a case for one of two plaintiffs as its claims have already been ruled on by the court, German exporter and consolidated plaintiff Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech said in its Oct. 19 motion for partial judgment (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00158).
Former International Trade Commissioner Raldolph Stayin will join Buchanan Ingersoll in the international trade and national security practice, the firm said. The ITC announced Stayin's departure Oct. 19. His term would have expired in June 2026 (see 2310190048).
The Commerce Department correctly found that exporter KG Dongbu Steel's debt-to-equity restructurings provided a countervailable benefit, DOJ said in an Oct. 20 reply at the Court of International Trade. Dongbu is challenging the fifth countervailing duty review of corrosion-resistant steel products from Korea and took issue with Commerce's findings of a countervailable benefit to the restructurings as well as the determination that benefits from those swaps passed to Dongbu after an ownership change. The exporter also argued that Commerce incorrectly calculated long-term loan benchmarks (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00055).
The Commerce Department correctly relied entirely on adverse facts available (see 2309200030) to calculate a 760% dumping rate for antidumping duty respondent Saffron Living Co. on remand, a group of petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, said in their Oct. 20 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Brooklyn Bedding v. U.S., CIT # 21-00285).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated Oct. 20 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The Commerce Department incorrectly found solar panels imported from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to four separate complaints, all filed on Oct. 18 and all asking the Court of International Trade for remand.
The International Trade Commission on Oct. 18 announced the departure of Commissioner Randolph Stayin, who will "return to private practice." The departure leaves the commission with only four of a possible six active commissioners. Stayin was confirmed by the Senate Aug. 1, 2019, and was set to serve until 2026. He served as vice chairman of the commission between June 2020 and June 2022.
The Commerce Department shouldn't have relied on adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review on tapered roller bearings from China when the respondent was fully cooperative, Chinese roller bearing exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing said in an Oct. 19 reply at Court of International Trade. Tainai didn't dispute a gap in the record due to incomplete or nonexistent responses from its suppliers. However, the company objected to the use of adverse inferences because it says it complied to the best of its ability (Shanghai Tainai Bearing v. U.S., CIT # 23-00020).