Jacob Kopnick

An in lieu of verification (ILV) questionnaire cannot substitute for an actual verification of information submitted as part of a countervailing duty proceeding, Turkish exporter Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi said in a June 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a CVD investigation of common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, Teknik said that Commerce did not provide adequate notice that the exporter's filings were deficient as is required (Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT 21-00251).

The Commerce Department again reversed course on applying a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for South Korean steel in an antidumping review, and those remand results were sustained by the Court of International Trade in a June 24 decision.

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

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's finding that Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control, thus barring it from receiving a separate antidumping rate, CIT said in a June 23 decision. The ruling leaves ZMC with the 92.84% China-wide rate in an antidumping administrative review on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, from China.

The Court of International Trade in a June 22 decision dismissed all but one of importer Maple Leaf Marketing's claims against Section 232 steel tariffs levied against goods shipped to Canada for further processing then reimported to the U.S. Finding that the president has broad authority to determine the "nature of the action necessary to adjust imports that threaten the national security," a three-judge panel tossed Maple Leaf's challenges to the imposition of the tariffs on Canada, which Maple Leaf had argued was untimely, as well as to the assessment of Section 232 duties on steel articles qualifying for repair and alteration treatment under Chapter 98, among other things.

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

Target's complaint filed in the Court of International Trade challenging the court's ability to order the reliquidation of imports past 90 days after their initial liquidation by CBP “masquerades as a motion” for CIT to relitigate this issue, the Department of Justice said in a June 22 motion to dismiss the case. The court's decision in the underlying case, Home Products International Inc. v. United States, already addressed Target's complaint, so the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, DOJ said.

The Commerce Department's recent interpretation of the finished merchandise exemption to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China led to the "same absurd results" the agency originally wanted to avoid in its previous "subassemblies test" interpretation, importer WKW North America argued in a June 21 brief in support of its motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. WKW contests a scope ruling from Commerce that found that the importer's automotive waist finishers, belt moldings and outer waist belts are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders because subassemblies can't qualify for the exemption (WKW North America, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00072).

The Commerce Department has the right to select a single mandatory respondent in antidumping proceedings, the Department of Justice said in a June 21 response brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. YC Rubber, Sutong and ITG Voma are appealing their unsuccessful Court of International Trade challenge of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In its brief, DOJ says that Commerce is not required by law to examine more than one company individually (YC Rubber Co. (North America) et al. v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1489).

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.