CIT Improperly Entered Judgment Without Addressing Alternative Arguments in CVD Case, Brief Says

A Chinese aluminum extrusion exporter, along with its affiliates, filed for a rehearing in a countervailing duty case at the Court of International Trade, arguing the trade court failed to address the company's alternative arguments on a host of issues. The issues, which include claims about the specificity of an alleged benefit and whether certain input suppliers are government entities, are fully briefed and "ripe for decision," the motion for rehearing said (Taizhou United Imp. & Exp. Co. v. U.S., CIT #16-00009).

Initially brought by Taizhou United, the case concerns the 2013 administrative review of the CVD order on aluminum extrusions from China. In a prior opinion the court sustained Commerce's position on nearly all the contested issues. Judge Leo Gordon, however, remanded the agency's decision to countervail subsidized purchases of glass and aluminum extrusions. On remand, Commerce continued to find that the glass purchases are countervailable, even though they weren't used in the subject aluminum extrusions. Gordon upheld this position in February, finding the glass input is countervailable (see 2202180042).

In response, five of the plaintiff-intervenors, all affiliated with Jangho Group, filed for relief from judgment and for rehearing on claims that Jangho says the court didn't address. Jangho argued that even if Commerce can countervail glass, the record doesn't support Commerce's finding that the suppliers are government entities, a benefit was provided or any benefit was specific in nature.

"The Court entered final judgment without addressing these alternative arguments raised by Jangho concerning whether Commerce reasonably found that the statutory requirements of § 1677(5) were met with respect to Plaintiffs' aluminum extrusion and glass purchases," the brief said. "These issues have been fully briefed by the parties and are ripe for decision now that the Court has ruled that the Department adequately explained its finding that materials provided at [less than adequate remuneration] may be countervailable even if the materials are not inputs for the subject merchandise."