The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review over the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program is not backed by sufficient evidence, nonselected respondent Evolutions Flooring and Struxtur said in a Dec. 20 complaint. Filing at the Court of International Trade, the companies also contested Commerce's calculations for various inputs' less-than-adequate remuneration programs (Evolutions Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00591).
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
An extension of the scheduling order isn't needed in a countervailing duty case, brought by The Mosaic Company, after the Court of International Trade granted a litigant's motion to amend its complaint to add a new claim, the litigants told the court in a Dec. 17 letter. Consolidated plaintiff Industrial Group Phosphorite sought to amend its complaint in the action to add a single count challenging the Commerce Department's de facto specificity determination over the alleged natural gas subsidy program. In a Nov. 19 order, Judge Jane Restani granted the amendment despite opposition from other litigants (The Mosaic Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00117). The overarching case concerns Commerce's final results in the countervailing duty investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia. In the letter to Restani, though, Mosaic said that it conferred with the other parties, and they all agreed that no further amendment to the briefing schedule is necessary. "In light of that argument’s short length, and considering February 2022 deadlines Mosaic faces in other cases before the Court that would necessitate substantial extensions of the deadlines in this case if extensions were to be of any practical value, Mosaic believes amendment of the scheduling order is not warranted at this time," the letter said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group continued to argue that assigning it the China-wide entity rate is an unfair application of adverse facts available in Dec. 16 comments on the Commerce Department's remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Notably, though, Jinqiao Flooring did not mention a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that found that China-wide rates can still be based on AFA even if no members of the countrywide entity were found to be uncooperative. Nevertheless, the company claimed it should be granted a separate dumping rate and that substantial evidence does not back Commerce's contention that it is de facto controlled by the Chinese government (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S., CIT #18-00191).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the notice of appearance for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's counsel in the company's appeal of an evasion finding to not be in compliance with the court's rules. Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, the attorney listed on Royal Brush's Entry of Appearance, had not registered for an electronic filer account with the Federal Circuit's filing system. The form must be resubmitted once Oleynik has an electronic filing account, the notice said (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).
The Court of International Trade extended on Dec. 16 a mediation period in three cases contesting the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests, until Feb. 15. 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.
Five Republican Senators filed an amicus brief on Dec. 15 with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to take up a case over the limits of the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. The brief, signed by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Bill Cassidy, R-La.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., argues against a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion spurning time limits imposed in the statute. The time limits are crucial to ensuring that "Congress makes the major policy decisions regarding the regulation of foreign commerce," the lawmakers said.