The Commerce Department continued to apply adverse facts available relating to the agency's inability to verify two mandatory respondents' non-use of China's Export Buyers Credit Program in a countervailing duty case, despite lengthy remand instructions from the Court of International Trade. Answering a series of nine questions from Judge Timothy Reif, Commerce thoroughly explained why it continues to apply AFA on this critical issue absent further collaboration with the Chinese government, in its remand results. Likening the saga over the EBCP in the court to the film Groundhog Day, Reif sought an explanation from Commerce that would firmly answer the question of whether AFA was legitimately applied on the issue (Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00032).

The U.S. Court of International Trade vacated the repository requirement imposed in its July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order for importers to request suspending the liquidation of customs entries from China with Section 301 lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure, said an order signed Sept. 8 by Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. The government will liquidate those entries “in the ordinary course” and refund the money with interest if the tariffs are declared unlawful, “should that decision become final and conclusive, including all appeals,” it said. The court also vacated the PI order’s temporary restraining order period when no entries could have liquidated, with or without the repository.

The Commerce Department's proposed schedule to review Section 232 exclusion requests on remand is "necessary in light of Commerce's current limited resources," the agency said in a Sept. 9 brief. Replying to the plaintiffs' opposition to Commerce's voluntary remand motion at the Court of International Trade, the agency also urged the court to simply defer to the proposed schedule due to Commerce's limited resources and the non-prejudicial nature of the schedule to the lawsuit's parties. Many of the consolidated plaintiffs opposed the schedule, arguing that it was "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale (see 2108170072).

If the Commerce Department is to deduct Section 232 national security tariffs from exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi's U.S. price in an antidumping duty rate calculation, it should do it at the original 25% rate and not the increased 50% margin subsequently announced by President Donald Trump and later invalidated by the Court of International Trade, the plaintiff said in a Sept. 3 CIT brief at the Court of International Trade (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00140).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade remanded parts and sustained parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the fifth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, in a Sept. 3 order. Judge Jane Restani sustained Commerce's specificity finding for the aluminum extrusions for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) program, the agency's chosen benchmark for the land value for the LTAR program, and plaintiff and mandatory respondent Canadian Solar's lack of creditworthiness in 2016. Conversely, the judge remanded Commerce's entered value adjustment finding for Canadian Solar and its determination that the respondents benefited from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program.

Tapered roller bearing importer Wanxiang America Corporation does not have jurisdiction to challenge guidance issued from the Commerce Department to CBP on the assessment of antidumping duties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Sept. 2 decision upholding a ruling from the Court of International Trade. Jurisdiction under the court's residual jurisdiction, Section 1581(i), cannot be claimed by "creative pleading," and proper jurisdiction for Wanxiang America's case could have been claimed elsewhere based on the "true nature of the action," the court said. The Federal Circuit pointed to a CIT's denied protest jurisdiction under Section 1581(a), and antidumping and countervailing duty challenge jurisdiction under Section 1581(c), as potential jurisdictional homes for the action.

The three-judge panel presiding over the Section 301 litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade appeared during a brief, 27-minute status conference Sept. 1 to be edging closer to resolving the two-month impasse over suspending the liquidation of customs entries with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure.

The Court of International Trade should not stay judgment of its decision rejecting Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum "derivatives" since plaintiffs in a separate but relevant case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have a "significant probability" to succeed, a motion opposing the stay said. Plaintiffs Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products filed their opposition on Aug. 30 after the Justice Department sought the stay once the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S. case, permitting the president to take Section 232 tariff actions beyond procedural deadlines (Oman Fasteners, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00037).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.