Court of International Trade

In remand results for the antidumping duty administrative review of certain cased pencils from China for the period of December 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007, the ITA revised its labor rate value for Chinese pencil manufacturers, using a more narrowly defined set of market economy countries at levels of economic development more comparable to that of China. Producer/exporter Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. then argued that the ITA should use only a single country for wage rates, as it does for other factors of production, but the Court of International Trade ruled the complaint “groundless,” since using multiple countries for wage rates is specifically required by the agency’s regulations. However, the CIT found the ITA’s exclusion of detailed, relevant wage rate data for Indian wood products makers to be inconsistent and unjustified, and further dismissed as “absurd” the ITA’s decision to identify as “significant producers” a number of small countries with only nominal exports of pencils, such as the Maldives, with $67 of exports. The court accordingly remanded these aspects of the determination to the ITA. (Slip Op. 11-45, dated 04/21/11)

In response to a Court of International Trade remand on the final results of the antidumping duty investigation of certain steel threaded rod from China, the International Trade Administration reconsidered the exclusion of financial data for an Indian pre-stressed concrete wire products manufacturer from the normal value calculation, conceding that the Indian firm did make “comparable merchandise.” With the resulting altered normal value, the dumping margin declined from 55.16% to 47.37% for Chinese producer/exporters Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd, a.k.a. Brother Standard Parts Co., Ltd., IFI & Morgan Ltd., and RMB Fasteners Ltd. (Slip Op. 11-44, dated 04/21/11)

In Canadian Wheat Board, et al. v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Court of International Trade decision that the U.S. government cannot retain unliquidated antidumping and countervailing duties that were deposited prior to the revocation of an AD or CV duty order, and that the duty depositors are entitled to a return of those duties.

Following the second remand results in the antidumping duty administrative review of fresh garlic from China for the period November 2001 - October 2002, Jinan Yipin Corporation contested the International Trade Administration’s cardboard and labor surrogate values and alleged other errors, while the ITA requested a voluntary remand to revise the value to conform with an appeals court ruling that found the ITA’s prior method of calculating Chinese labor costs to be illegal. The Court of International Trade denied Jinan Yipin’s complaints and upheld the ITA’s remand results methodologies, but granted the ITA a voluntary remand to revise labor costs. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 11/09/09 news, 09110935, for BP summary of second remand decision. See ITT’s Online Archives or 05/19/10 news, 10051935, for BP summary of the CAFC decision overturning ITA’s use of certain labor cost values.) (Slip Op. 11-36, dated 04/12/11)

A 2009 remand decision from the Court of International Trade found fault with the methods of the International Trade Administration in ruling that a New York importer’s collapsible hand cart, purportedly designed for luggage and sales samples, fell within the scope of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof from China even though the order excludes most collapsible carts. However, after the ITA, on remand, conducted some simple tests of the disputed cart’s ability to slide under loads, the court found that the agency had acted correctly, and upheld the scope ruling. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 11/23/09 news, 09112360, for BP summary of earlier court decision.) (Slip Op. 11-37, dated 04/12/11)

In the February 2006 -January 2007 antidumping duty administrative review of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam, the International Trade Administration assigned unreviewed companies the rates they had been assigned in the earlier investigation. For the second remand, ITA changed course and assigned the unreviewed companies the zero rate it had calculated for the mandatory respondents (the firms selected by the agency as representative sample firms), and the court has now upheld this result. (Slip Op. 11-39, dated 04/14/11)

Respondents challenging the International Trade Administration’s application of parallel antidumping and countervailing duties, in the AD and CV investigations of magnesia carbon bricks from China and Mexico, had asked the Court of International Trade to stay proceedings in their action pending an expected ruling on the issue from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Noting that it has already held the practice of applying simultaneous AD and CV duties to be impermissible, the CIT agreed to stay and consolidate the multiple plaintiffs’ actions until the CAFC rules on the CIT’s decision in GPX International Tires et. al v. U.S. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 08/09/10 news, 10080911, for BP summary of CIT's ruling in GPX International Tire Corp. et al v. U.S., disallowing the ITA’s simultaneous application of AD and CV duties.) (Slip Op. 11-38, dated 04/14/11)

Following a second remand over the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates from China (used in pool chlorination), covering the period December 16, 2004 - May 31, 2006, domestic producers challenged the use of a by-product offset for chlorine gas, which effectively reduced the Chinese exporter’s costs and AD margin. The Court of International Trade upheld by-product offsets for chlorine gas recovered in the production of subject merchandise, but ruled against the use of a by-product offset for chlorine gas recovered during liquefaction of chlorine, since it derives from the production of non-subject merchandise and is not required in the production of subject merchandise. The CIT therefore remanded this aspect of the determination to the International Trade Administration for recalculation. (Slip Op. 11-41, dated 04/15/11)

The American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. sought to participate as defendant-intervenors in a lawsuit brought by Chinese furniture makers following an antidumping duty scope ruling by the International Trade Administration in wooden bedroom furniture from China. These domestic producers had filed an appearance in the agency scope review and were thus legally an “interested party,” but did not submit argument or evidence in the review. The Court of International Trade ruled the domestic producers therefore had not gained rights as a “party to proceeding” at court, which requires participating, “through written submissions of factual information or written argument, in a segment of a proceeding.” (Slip Op. 11-40, dated 04/14/11)

Seeking to challenge its failure to be awarded status as an affected domestic producer (ADP), which would entitle it to distributions of antidumping duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA aka Byrd Amendment), Giorgio Foods, Inc. sued to attempt to force the International Trade Commission to provide documents from the AD injury investigations on certain preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia. The ITC argued that “Giorgio was not a petitioner in the investigations and did not express support for the petition in its questionnaire response,” and thus did not qualify as an ADP, but the company alleged that documents from the investigation, as yet not divulged by the agency, would show it had supported the petition. The Court of International Trade ruled in favor of the domestic grower, ordering the ITC to provide the full set of documents considered directly or indirectly in the investigation. (Slip Op. 11-27, dated 03/08/11, public version posted 04/08/11)