The Department of Justice backed the Commerce Department's decision to hit antidumping duty review respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group with the China-wide dumping rate despite its full cooperation in the review, in a Jan. 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that after looking at Jinqiao Flooring's ownership makeup, the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of government control and that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld Commerce's bid to use an adverse facts available rate for a separate rate respondent despite its full cooperation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S. , CIT #18-00191).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will conduct all scheduled arguments for the February 2022 session by videoconference, the court said in a Jan. 18 notice. However, only arguing counsel will have access to the video call, while the general public may only livestream the argument's audio. No motions for access beyond arguing counsel will be entertained, the court said.

Puerto Rican importer Ricardo Cruz Distributors told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 13 complaint that CBP imposed the wrong countervailing duty rate on an entry of its tires since the seller of the tires was given an individual CVD rate in the past. The exporter of the tires at issue was Chinese manufacturer Tyrechamp, which was given an individual CVD rate of 15.56% in 2016. The company admitted to placing the wrong company name under the "Manufacturer ID" section in one of its forms to CBP, but still argues that the lower rate should nonetheless be applied (Ricardo Cruz Distributors Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00006).

The Commerce Department dropped its reliance on facts available in an antidumping duty investigation after conducting remand proceedings at the Court of International Trade, finding a questionnaire it issued in lieu of a site visit during the coronavirus pandemic "satisfies the verification requirement" laid out in the statute, in remand results filed Jan. 12 at the Court of International Trade (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00007).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 13 sustained the Commerce Department's final determination in a countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, upholding the agency's finding that the Korean Electricity Corp. (KEPCO) didn't provide electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) and that the prices on the Korean Power Exchange (KPX) aren't a countervailable benefit.

The Commerce Department properly found that importer Vandewater International Inc.'s steel branch outlets are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 11 brief. Commerce's scope ruling is backed by a reading of each "(k)(2)" factor, including the physical characteristics of the steel branch outlets, the ultimate purchasers' expectations, the ultimate use of the product, and channels of trade in which the product is sold (Vandewater International Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00199).

The Court of International Trade should compel CBP to respond to Wheatland Tube's request for information and request for a tariff classification ruling over certain electrical conduits from Mexico, Wheatland Tube told the Court of International in a Jan. 12 complaint. Seeking a writ of mandamus in a motion filed concurrently with the complaint, Wheatland alleges that certain importers, namely Shamrock Building Materials, are mis-labelling their imports to qualify for an exception to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties (Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, CIT #22-00004).

The Commerce Department incorrectly found Kumar Industries was affiliated with one of its home market buyers and one of its input suppliers in an antidumping duty review, and shouldn't have applied adverse facts available based on the lack of information provided by Kumar because the information wasn't requested, Kumar told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 complaint (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT #21-00622).

Two “pertinent and significant” decisions at the Court of International Trade support the arguments of Section 301 test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its Trade Act of 1974 modification authority by imposing the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and that it violated protections in the Administrative Procedure Act against sloppy rulemakings, Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco said in a notice of supplemental authorities relevant to the Section 301 litigation. Both decisions were handed down after Akin Gump filed its final written brief in the Section 301 case on Nov. 15 (see 2111160010).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.