The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a challenge to the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam after the plaintiffs, led by the Hung Vuong Corporation, moved to voluntarily toss the appeal. The Court of International Trade had upheld Commerce's use of AFA based on Hung Vuong's failure to retain source documents on feed consumption, production records and sales correspondence, and the respondent's failure to report factors of production data on a control number-specific basis (see 2110130031) (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1261).

The Commerce Department erred when it found that two countervailing duty review mandatory respondents did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation, the CVD petitioner, Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment, said in a Feb. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT #22-00002).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two mandates dismissing challenges brought by Trans Texas Tire and Zhejiang Jingu Company over a scope ruling in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigation into steel trailer wheels from China. In November 2021, the Court of International Trade upheld Commerce's inclusion of steel trailer wheels coated in chrome through a physical vapor deposition process under the ADD/CVD orders on steel trailer wheels while also dropping the retroactive imposition of the duties on subject merchandise (see 2111180043). One case concerns the antidumping duty order and the other is on the countervailing duty order. Jingu moved to dismiss the the appeals on Feb. 7 (Trans Texas Tire LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1395, -1396).

The Commerce Department erred by rejecting countervailing duty respondent Uttam Galva's submissions on an affiliated company then hitting the respondent with adverse facts available, the respondent, Uttam Galva Steels Limited, argued in a Feb. 4 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The defendant-appellees in the case, led by Commerce, argued that the agency can reject evidence that detracts from an AFA calculation if it does't have a complete response. But this "abdicates Commerce's responsibility" to look at the substance of detracting information, Uttam Galva said (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).

The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases filed by BASF. The decision to consolidate follows a motion by BASF to combine the cases in the interests of avoiding "unnecessary costs or delay." Both cases involve the same product and the same underlying matter of law: whether a formulated beta-carotene product used by BASF’s customers as a source of provitamin A is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2936.90.01 as “Provitamins, unmixed,” duty free, or subheading 2106.90.99, as “Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other.,” dutiable at the rate of 6.4%. Judge Richard Eaton granted BASF's request, as it would "promote the just, speedy, and less expensive determination of this action." After Feb. 7, the combined cases will proceed as number 12-00422.

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision bolsters the U.S.'s case in a dispute over whether China's provision of electricity qualifies as a countervailable benefit, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 7 notice of supplemental authority submitted to the Court of International Trade. On Jan. 28, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can use adverse facts available over the Chinese government's failure to provide information on its price-setting practices in a countervailing duty review concerning its provision of electricity (see 2201280033). In a case brought by Risen Energy Co. related to the subsequent review of the same CVD order on solar cells from China, DOJ told the trade court that the January decision backs its argument (Risen Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03912).

The Commerce Department can easily verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) in countervailing duty reviews, plaintiff Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. told the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 4 brief. Refuting Commerce's contention that it needed certain information from the Chinese government to verify non-use, which has been struck down by the trade court, Yama said that the agency actually had all it needed to verify that the CVD respondent's U.S. customers didn't use the program (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00402).

The Court of International Trade reported that it settled all issues via mediation in two cases over the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries, but the specifics of mediation were not made known (N. Am. Interpipe, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-03825) (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

CBP took exporter LB Wood Cambodia's statements "completely out of context" in an "unceasing attempt to crucify" the company in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation, plaintiff-intervenor Interglobal said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP ascribed "the worst possible motives" to all the parties to the litigation, including LB Wood, and used "its own misstated presumption as grounds for pole-vaulting" to the conclusion that any evidence that undermines the agency's decisions is "inherently suspect," the brief said (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #20-03914).