The Wind Tower Trade Coalition will appeal a December Court of International Trade decision that sustained the Commerce Department's decision to ultimately find no countervailable subsidization in a countervailing duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from Indonesia. The plaintiff and defendant-intervenor will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Jan. 20 notice of appeal. The trade court said that Commerce properly found that PT. Krakatau POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned firm -- wasn't an authority nor directed by an authority and thus couldn't provide countervailable benefits (see 2112280046). The judge said that while the result of the case may be "disappointing" to the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, it represents a proper application of the law (PT. Kenertec Power System v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03687).

The Commerce Department should not have considered "(k)(1)" materials over the plain meaning of the scope of an antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China in finding that certain flanges fall outside of the ADD order, defendant-intervenor ASC Engineered Solutions said in Jan. 20 comments at the Court of International Trade. Since Commerce found that Crane Resistoflex's flanges "clearly fall within the plain language of the scope," that should have been the end of the case. Instead, Commerce considered the (k)(1) materials and illegally excluded Crane's flanges, the brief said (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).

The Commerce Department came back with remand results in a case on its antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, relying on total cost of production for prime and non-prime merchandise in respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books as facts otherwise available and revising the major input rule adjustment for Dillinger's coke inputs to reflect a contemporaneous comparison of coke consumption values and freight costs (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158). Commerce also revised its adjustments to Dillinger's COP for inputs and services rendered to affiliates and gave a further explanation for its use of partial adverse facts available to respondent Salzgitter. The result was a 4.98% dumping rate for Dillinger, a 22.90% rate for Salzgitter and a 20.99% all-others rate, if the remand results are sustained.

Just because Section 232 tariffs are placed in Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, this doesn't make them remedial tariffs, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 brief. The tariffs also aren't temporary, don't count as a double remedy and can be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's export price, the brief said (Borusan Mannesman Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).

The United States will not participate in the appeal over whether the law permits expedited countervailing duty reviews, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 19 letter. In the case, originally brought by the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, the Court of International Trade said that there was no legal authority for such reviews (see 2108190002). The decision was then appealed by the Canadian government, among other parties, which argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department when it found that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (see 2112280025) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).

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

The Commerce Department reasonably hit countervailing duty respondent Uttam Galva Steels Limited with adverse facts available over its failure to reveal its affiliation with a cross-owned producer of the subject merchandise, Lloyds Steel Industries Limited, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 reply brief. Since Uttam Galva only admitted to affiliation with LSIL after prodding from Commerce, the respondent failed to have cooperated to the best of its ability, justifying the use of AFA, DOJ said (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).

Steel trailer wheel exporter Zhejiang Jingu Co. will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit two court decisions on the Commerce Department's scope revision in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on steel trailer wheels from China, according to the pair of notices of appeal. 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 (Trans Texas Tire v. U.S., CIT #19-00188, -00189).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Government of Argentina and Argentine biodiesel company LDC Argentina over the Commerce Department's changed circumstances review of countervailing duties on biodiesel from Argentina. The two had appealed a Court of International Trade decision affirming Commerce's determination that the situation had not changed regarding countervailable subsides from Argentina's biodiesel industry. The trade court also upheld Commerce's decision to originally find changed circumstances but later switch back to a finding of no changed circumstances (see 2109210046) (Government of Argentina v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1190).

PrimeSource Building Products distinguished a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision affirming the Commerce Department's ability to use adverse facts available in its separate rate calculation from its case at issue at the Court of International Trade. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority to rival the one submitted by the antidumping petitioner, PrimeSource said that the recent Federal Circuit opinion in Bosun Tools v. U.S. is not applicable to its case since the appellate court noted an increasing trend in past rates calculated for one of the separate rate respondents that justified the use of AFA. No such trend exists in PrimeSource's case, the brief said.