AD/CVD Court Decisions In First Half of November 2010

The Court of International Trade (CIT) made the following antidumping and countervailing duty law determinations in the first half of November 2010.

Standards Needed for Determining Exporter’s Knowledge of Ultimate Destination of Goods

In the AD new shipper review of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam for the period August 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008, producer Hiep Thanh Seafood claimed that certain U.S. sales it failed to report as required had been intended for Mexico, and challenged the ITA’s treatment of them as U.S. sales. The court ordered the ITA to explain, on remand, what standards or criteria it will apply regarding the exporters’ knowledge of the ultimate destination in such situations, in order to affix liability for AD duties. (Slip-Op. 10-125, dated 11/05/10)

Third Remand on Government Control Issue in China Hand Trucks AD Case

Following a second remand in the AD administrative review of hand trucks and certain parts thereof from China for the period December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2006, the ITA sought to assign to producer Qingdao Taifa a rate of 227.73% (down from 383.60%) because of multiple attempted deceptions and because the local town government owned a majority of the firm’s shares. Now the CIT has remanded the case for a third time, ordering the ITA to either explain how record evidence demonstrates government control or else impose a separate, lower adverse rate “somehow grounded in the realities of this industry.” See ITT‘s Online Archives or 05/18/10 news, 10051884, for BP summary of the preceding CIT remand. (Slip Op 10-126, dated 11/12/10)

ITA’s Limited “Sampling” for Determining AD Japan Bearing Rates Unlawful

In the 18th AD administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom, for the period May 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007, the ITA selected only three representative respondents to calculate rates for Japanese producers. Asahi Seiko Co. challenged the limited selection and its exclusion from an individual review, as it would have been eligible to earn revocation of its AD order if it had been reviewed and showed a zero margin. The court acknowledged that the ITA’s limited sampling was unlawful but nevertheless ruled against Asahi, reasoning the company failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because it withdrew from the AD administrative review proceedings. (Slip Op. 10-127, dated 11/12/10)