The U.S. on Sept. 20 defended the Commerce Department’s continued decision on a second remand to use Brazil as the primary surrogate country and Malaysia for the surrogate values of a particular input in a 2019-2020 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00190).

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

Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed separate notices of dismissal in two cases at the Court of International Trade. In both cases, the importer said CBP refused to explain why it denied a protest on its vehicle parts after the agency assessed antidumping duties 78.55% higher than it had been assigned in a past AD review (see 2407240019 and 2408090021). The cases both said CBP failed to provide adequate reasoning for denying the protests. In one, the company said the protest denial improperly centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which it wasn't given access to. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply, LLC v. U.S., CIT #s 24-00124, -00149).

The U.S. agreed to refund Section 232 duties that exporter ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada paid on its steel bars and rod imports, the parties said in a Sept. 20 stipulated judgment submitted to the Court of International Trade. The parties said the 47 entries at issue across seven cases brought by the company qualify for exclusion to the duties granted by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada v. United States, CIT # 21-00038).

A German exporter of steel used to transport corrosive materials responded Sept. 20 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to a U.S. claim that the Commerce Department's decision to calculate certain of the exporter’s production costs for a review using the items' sales values was rational because the figures “came from Dillinger’s own books and records” (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

In a 131-page brief before the Court of International Trade, the U.S. responded Sept. 20 to claims by plaintiffs that its circumvention finding regarding Vietnamese hardwood plywood was flawed. It said again that the Commerce Department’s decision to not pick a mandatory respondent was fair and that adverse facts available had been correctly applied to 20 exporters (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The U.S. on Sept. 20 defended its decision on remand to not apply partial adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube, claiming that the exporter was "fully cooperative," having made multiple attempts to get cost information from an unaffiliated supplier. The government said Commerce couldn't find enough evidence to show that the potential leverage Garg Tube could exert over the supplier supports the use of AFA (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

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

The Court of International Trade granted Sept. 20 an importer’s consent motion to stay for 180 days proceedings brought against it by the U.S. The importer said in its motion, filed Sept. 18, that the parties were working to settle the case, which alleges the importer dodged antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings by misclassifying its entries (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case after rejecting a motion for rehearing from the governments of Canada and Quebec and exporter Marmen Energie Inc. The parties asked the court to revisit its decision sustaining the countervailability of a Canadian tax program in the CVD investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada (see 2409120009). The tax program relates to the additional depreciation for certain Class 1 assets. The appellate court said deductions given to Marmen in addition to the standard 4% depreciation rate amount to forgone revenue for the Canadian government (see 2406210031) (Government of Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).