The Commerce Department's admission that the administrative case brief in an antidumping duty matter wasn't the right time to bring up arguments over verification procedures reveals the futility of raising verification concerns administratively, plaintiffs led by Ellwood City Forge argued to fight off claims that it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, Ellwood said Commerce's remand results in a separate AD case declaring that 63 days was "far too late" to pursue a request for virtual verification in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 restrictions indicates that raising the issue of virtual verification in the petitioner's case was futile (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).
The Senate Commerce Committee is poised to potentially mark up legislation that would establish a duty of care for social media platforms to protect children’s online privacy (see 2202160055), bill supporters told us.
The U.S.'s rationale for its motion to stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade is "remarkable," and essentially concedes that CBP cannot back its evasion finding, plaintiffs Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group (IPPG) said in a July 6 brief opposing the stay. The stay motion wants to halt proceedings at CIT so a covered merchandise referral can be issued to the Commerce Department, but the plaintiffs said that such a referral is not possible, the case has been narrowed to record issues and the move signals a concession on the facts (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00192).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade properly held that President Donald Trump violated the law by revoking an exclusion on bifacial solar panels from the Section 201 safeguard duties, plaintiff-appellees led by the Solar Energy Industries Association and Invenergy Renewables said in two reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. SEIA, in its brief, along with Nextera Energy, argued that the trade court correctly found that "all the tools of statutory construction" show that the law prevents trade-restrictive changes to the safeguard measure (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A host of U.S. mattress producers and trade unions argued in a July 1 brief that the International Trade Commission's final affirmative injury determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imported mattresses should be upheld at the Court of International Trade.
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to issue questionnaires in lieu of on-site verification due to the COVID-19-related travel restrictions in 2020 following an order from the Court of International Trade to either conduct verification virtually or further explain its original decision. The agency in June 30 remand results said that the plaintiffs, led by Bonney Forge, raised the issue of conducting a virtual verification too late and that mandatory respondent Shakti Forge Industries' questionnaire responses provide a "reasonable alternative" to on-site or remote verification (Bonney Forge Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of June 27 - July 3:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 1 order dismissed antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube's appeal of the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded pipe from Turkey, granting the company's unopposed motion to toss the case. Wheatland filed the appeal to contest the Court of International Trade's ruling that Commerce couldn't make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test. After the Federal Circuit issued its judgment in the key Hyundai Steel case, plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann moved for affirmance on the issue. Wheatland then moved to toss the case, stating that Hyundai Steel "controls the issues" in the present appeal (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2097).