Court of International Trade

The Court of International Trade remanded the all-others rate from the final countervailing duty determination of aluminum extrusions from China (C-570-968) to the International Trade Administration for further consideration and explanation. Domestic plaintiffs challenged the ITA’s decision to entirely base the 374.15% all-others rate on the non-cooperative mandatory respondents’ adverse facts available (AFA) rate of the same amount, and omit voluntary respondents’ rates from the all-others calculation. According to plaintiffs, this decision was prohibited by the governing statute, based on an invalidly promulgated regulation, and unreasonable and not supported by substantial evidence. CIT disagreed with plaintiffs' first two arguments, but agreed that the ITA’s methodology was unreasonable and remanded.

The Court of International Trade found that the International Trade Administration failed to comply with the CIT’s instructions in the ITA’s remand redetermination of final results of the 2007 administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890). Specifically, the CIT found that the ITA did not reconsider or further explain the China-wide rate of 216.01% assigned to Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. or the ITA's choice of weight-based data to determine the surrogate value for wood inputs. The CIT has now remanded these issues for a second time.

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s scope determination that plaintiff Acme Furniture Industry, Inc.’s imported product (a daybed with trundle) falls within the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890).

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s calculation of antidumping rates for separate rate respondents in its redetermination of the AD final determination of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China (A-570-952). The ITA’s redetermination was pursuant to a CIT partial remand of the final determination at issue. Chinese plaintiff Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. challenged the ITA’s use of a simple average of the 247.65% Adverse Facts Available rate for one mandatory respondent and the de minimis rate for the other to obtain a 123.83% rate for the separate rate respondents, including Bestpak. While the CIT issued its original partial remand in the belief that there might be additional choices from which the ITA could calculate the separate rate, the CIT has now sustained the ITA’s calculation after considering the ITA’s explanation because in this case, according to CIT, those additional choices do not exist.

The Court of International Trade remanded the final results of the antidumping duty new shipper review of fresh garlic from China (A-570-851) to the ITA for redetermination. Specifically, in response to arguments from Chinese plaintiff Qingdao Sea-line Trade Co., Ltd., which was assigned a rate of 155.33% in the review, CIT ordered the ITA to: (1) explain its decision to use a non-contemporaneous surrogate value in its calculations; (2) revisit its use of Tata Tea’s statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios, and if ITA continues to use Tata Tea, explain why it constitutes the best available information; and (3) evaluate plaintiff’s suggestion during the review to use financial statements from Garlico to calculate surrogate financial ratios. The ITA’s remand redetermination is due to CIT by July 23, 2012. (CIT Slip Op. 12-39, dated 03/21/12, Judge Eaton)

The Court of International Trade affirmed the International Trade Administration’s remand redetermination in the 2008-09 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from China (A-552-801). The remand redetermination, which domestic plaintiffs Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Association (AHSTA) continued to dispute, was pursuant to a 2011 CIT order to further explain or reconsider its decision to rely exclusively on U.S. Customs and Border Protection Form 7501 data for entries designated as “Type 03”¹ when selecting mandatory respondents in the review.

The Court of International Trade remanded to the International Trade Administration the final results of the 2004 changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia (A-557-805), which determined to revoke the AD order due to the bankruptcy of the sole U.S. manufacturer of the domestic like product. While the ITA revoked the order effective October 1, 2003, plaintiff Heveafil SDN. BHD. argues for an effective date of October 1, 1995.

The Court of International Trade dismissed claims by domestic plaintiffs Tampa Bay Fisheries, Inc. and Singleton Fisheries, Inc. arising from the U.S. International Trade Commission and U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s denial of monetary benefits under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA, or the “Byrd Amendment”). Tampa Bay and Singleton were not included on the ITC’s list of Affected Domestic Producers (ADPs) because of a failure to check the relevant boxes on an ITC questionnaire, and were therefore ineligible to receive Byrd Amendment distributions of antidumping duties collected under AD duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Thailand, India, China, Vietnam and Ecuador.

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s final antidumping duty determination in certain coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses from Indonesia (A-570-958) with respect to the Indonesian company Pindo Deli’s arguments that (i) the ITA improperly expanded the scope of the investigation to include multi-ply paper, and (ii) the ITA’s final determination is contrary to law because it rests on inadequate industry support.

The Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, refused to rehear en banc a case involving tariffs paid on plasma flat panel televisions assembled in Mexico between June 1, 2003, and December 27, 2005. The petition for rehearing was filed by plaintiff Hitachi Home Electronics in the case of Hitachi Home Electronics (America) vs. the U.S. The court said a poll of the judges showed no support for a rehearing.