The Commerce Department's finding that the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy is de facto specific to Spanish olive growers and thus countervailable is not backed by substantial evidence, plaintiffs in a case challenging this contention said in Dec. 3 comments submitted to the Court of International Trade. In its bid to corroborate this de facto specificity finding, Commerce actually shows the "proportionate nature of the programs," undermining the de facto finding, the comments on Commerce's remand results said (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa et al v. United States, CIT #18-00195).

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

There are no substantive differences between two cases challenging antidumping duty investigations into goods from India, one of which was granted a voluntary remand, so the Court of International Trade should grant a remand for the other, the plaintiffs for that case argued in a Dec. 1 brief. Both cases concern the lack of verification due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and CIT should allow Commerce to review whether it was appropriate to rely on supplemental questionnaire responses instead of on-site verification (Bonney Forge Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03837).

CBP will deny liquidation extension requests that are filed "based solely on the pending CIT litigation challenging the lawfulness of the Section 301 duties on Chinese goods under List 3 and/or List 4A," the agency said in CSMS message. CBP will "place protests challenging the lawfulness of the Section 301 duties imposed on Chinese goods under List 3 and/or List 4A in 'Suspended' status under 'Other,' as CBP will not be acting on these protests at this time," it said. "The suspension of protests under the 'Other' category does not in any manner acknowledge the validity of such protests but is merely an administrative convenience for CBP. This guidance regarding liquidation extensions and protest processing does not pertain to entries filed under List 1 (subheading 9903.88.01), List 2 (subheading 9903.88.02), submissions pertaining to exclusion requests pending with the U.S. Trade Representative, or submissions not contesting the validity of List 3 and/or List 4A Section 301 duties on Chinese goods."

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

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 30 consolidated three court cases, all challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the 2018-2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. The three cases are now consolidated under the action brought by Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited and all concern whether Commerce's all-others rate calculation was in accordance with the law. In the review, the agency hit the one mandatory respondent with adverse facts available, then extended this rate to all other respondents (see 2109140030). Kisaan challenged this action, arguing that "all other" respondents never failed to cooperate with Commerce's review, precluding the agency from hitting them with AFA (Kissan Die Tech Private Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00512).

The Commerce Department's refusal to calculate a non-adverse facts available rate for all other respondents in a countervailing duty review is not in accordance with the law, steel wheel importer Rimco said in its Nov. 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The agency's move of averaging the AFA rates to come up with a 388.1% all-others rate in the review is not backed by substantial evidence and cuts against a past CIT ruling, Rimco said (Rimco, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00588).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Nov. 29 in a case in which it found it lacked jurisdiction over a tapered roller bearing importer's challenge to guidance issued from the Commerce Department to CBP on the assessment of antidumping duties. In the Sept. 2 decision, the appellate court upheld the Court of International Trade decision denying Wanxing America Corporation's bid to challenge the guidance under the trade court's residual jurisdiction, Section 1581(i). The Federal Circuit said the action could've been properly filed under Sections 1581(a) or 1581(c). WAC argued it should have been subject to its parent company's zero percent dumping rate (see 2109020039) (Wanxiang America Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-1044).

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia covering entries in 2016-2017, in a Nov. 30 confidential opinion. The case, filed by mandatory respondent BlueScope Steel Ltd., challenged the final results for hitting BlueScope with adverse facts available. The seven-count action alleged, among other things, that Commerce's decision to apply AFA based on the fact that BlueScope withheld requested information is contradicted by record evidence. In a letter submitted to the litigants, Judge Richard Eaton said he wants bracketed information reviewed by Dec. 7 (BlueScope Steel Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00057).