The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade, one contesting the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty review of MLWF from China and in a countervailing duty review of MLWF from China. The U.S. industry group said that Commerce erred in the AD review by deviating from its expected method when finding the final dumping margin for non-selected separate rate companies and that it erred in the CVD review by failing to properly construct benchmarks for veneers, fiberboard and paint, primer and stain (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00595) (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00596).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 sustained the Commerce Department's flip to a final negative determination in the countervailing duty investigation of utility-scale wind towers from Indonesia. Judge Jane Restani, in her second opinion of the day, agreed with Commerce's determination on remand that Krakatau POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned company -- is neither an authority nor directed by an authority and therefore can't provide subsidies to the CVD respondents. The court also found that Commerce properly reached a negative upstream subsidy determination for the Rediscount Loan Program. Commerce had issued the order, now slated for revocation, in 2020.
The Commerce Department didn't discredit its position on its ability to verify nonuse of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a recent countervailing duty review, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 brief. Responding to allegations from the lead plaintiff in a case over a CVD review, DOJ said that Commerce was able to verify nonuse -- despite key information from the Chinese government -- in a separate review due to the low number of the respondents' U.S. customers -- something that is not true of the review at issue.
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted to CBP's website Dec. 20, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADD CVD Search page.
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted to CBP's website Dec. 17, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADD CVD Search page.
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted to CBP's website Dec. 15, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADD CVD Search page.
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted to CBP's website Dec. 14, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADD CVD Search page.
The Commerce Department said that two countervailing duty respondents did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, in Dec. 13 remand results, flipping its position on the issue. The agency also granted one of the respondents, Canadian Solar, an entered value adjustment in response to remand instructions from the Court of International Trade that spurned the agency's decision to not make the adjustment. If sustained, the result would be a CVD rate cut for the respondents and non-selected companies (Canadian Solar Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00178).
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted to CBP's website Dec. 9, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADD CVD Search page.
The issue of whether a South Korean port usage rights program is countervailable is not moot just because the Commerce Department has now assigned a de minimis rate to the countervailing duty respondent, Hyundai Steel Co. argued in a Dec. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Rather, since Commerce can continue subjecting Hyundai to countervailing duty reviews based on this port usage rights program, the question is key for Hyundai, despite the fact that it is not being hit with CV duties this time around, the company said (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #20-03799).