Court of International Trade

The Court of International Trade again rejected the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890), finding the Commerce Department failed to comply with two aspects of a September 2012 remand order. While accepting some of Commerce’s explanations and reconsiderations, the court again found fault with the agency’s decision to rely on calculated surrogate values of Huafeng’s inputs instead of the actual market prices paid, as well as its continued reliance on a questionable financial statement. Rather than remand for reconsideration, this time the court ordered that Commerce reverse its positions.

The Court of International Trade refused to rule in a tariff classification case on heat-sensitive glass bulbs, finding factual disputes prevented them from judging the legal merits of either party’s arguments. At issue was a CBP classification of Tyco Fire Products’ glass bulbs, which are filled with a chemical that causes them to explode when heated. CBP had classified them as articles of glass, but Tyco said the bulbs were parts of fire sprinkler systems and water heaters, and should be classified as such. CIT said it couldn’t rule on the question, because the parties hadn’t submitted enough evidence for the court to consider (1) whether the glass or the chemical gave the bulbs their essential character, and (2) whether the bulbs were mainly used in Tyco’s asserted applications.

The Court of International Trade again remanded the final results of the 2006-07 antidumping duty administrative review on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables from China (A-570-888) to reconsider Since Hardware’s rate. Now on its second remand, Commerce reversed position and found Since Hardware was entitled to a separate rate. It had previously held the company submitted false information on inputs, and so had declined to consider all of its submissions, including those on government control. Accordingly, in the original results of the review, it found the company to be part of the China-wide entity. But the court had twice told Commerce that it had to make a separate finding on whether the company was entitled to a separate rate (see 11113026).

As it had in a similar case on an earlier review, the Court of International Trade ordered another redo of the final results of the 2007-08 antidumping duty administrative review on floor-standing metal-top ironing tables from China (A-570-888). Commerce had originally assigned Foshan Shunde the China-wide rate for noncooperation, but the court had found that noncooperation didn’t apply to Commerce’s separate rate determination, and remanded in 2011 (see 11102458). On remand, the agency assigned Foshan Shunde a separate rate of 157.68 percent based on adverse facts available. CIT took no issue with the agency’s reliance on AFA, but said Commerce didn’t prove the chosen rate was relevant to Foshan Shunde’s business conditions. Corroboration is required when an AD rate is based on another company during an earlier period of review, the court said.

The Court of International Trade sustained the negative injury determination that ended the 2009 antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of standard steel fasteners from China and Taiwan, after finding the International Trade Commission justified its reliance on certain data on remand. Although the court originally remanded in October 2011 for ITC’s use of allegedly incomplete data (see 11102112), CIT accepted the ITC’s continued use of the data on remand because using different data wouldn’t have changed the ultimate finding of no injury to domestic industry, it said. As such, the court denied Nucor’s request for a new investigation.

After a decade of seesawing Commerce Department remand determinations on the issue, the Court of International Trade sustained the agency’s finding that critical circumstances did not exist for the 2001 antidumping duty investigation on honey from China (A-570-863). Commerce had originally found critical circumstances, which meant entries of subject merchandise from up to 90 days before the investigation’s preliminary decision were subject to AD duties. But a series of CIT and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rulings took issue with Commerce’s findings, given the requirement that importers had to know the honey was being dumped for critical circumstances to exist. Honey from China had been subject to a suspension agreement that set minimum reference prices during the period of investigation, so it couldn’t be inferred that the importers knew dumping was taking place, the courts had said. In the end, the court agreed with Commerce that record evidence didn’t really show importer knowledge of dumping, given the appeals court’s rulings.

The Commerce Department’s 2008 withdrawal of a regulation providing for partial application of “targeted dumping” alternative calculation methods in antidumping proceedings was invalid, and the regulation is still in effect, said the Court of International Trade in a June 17 decision. The finding resulted in a remand of the final determination from the antidumping duty investigation of coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses from China (A-570-958). CIT also remanded Commerce’s reliance on a hard 33 percent threshold for disregarding market prices for inputs, as well as the agency’s decision to treat sales made by Asia Pulp & Paper’s Hong Kong affiliate as normal “export price” transactions.

The Court of International Trade remanded a scope ruling on the aluminum extrusions from China antidumping and countervailing duty orders, for the Commerce Department to apply a new policy for the exclusion of finished goods from the order. Meridian Products said Commerce should have applied the new test adopted in an October scope ruling on side mount valve controls to Meridian’s scope ruling on trim kits. Meridian had requested the scope ruling in November, and Commerce found the trim kits to be covered by the AD/CVD orders the next month. The test from the October scope ruling relates to whether subassemblies can be considered “finished goods” or “finished goods kits,” and therefore excluded from the order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a test case on gender and age discrimination by Harmonized Tariff Schedule provisions for footwear and apparel. Rack Room, Skiz Imports, and Forever 21 argued that different duty rates for men’s, women’s and children’s footwear and apparel violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. According to the appeals court ruling, the outcome of 171 lawsuits depended on the result of this test case. As had the Court of International Trade in 2012, CAFC decided the companies failed to demonstrate Congressional intent to discriminate, and so failed to prove a violation of the equal protection clause.

The Commerce Department said a revisited scope ruling that found Rowley Company’s drapery rail kits outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967 / C-570-968) went into effect June 3, following approval by the Court of International Trade. Commerce had originally found the kits to be subject to the orders in February 2012, but amid a court challenge by Rowley requested a redo of the scope ruling. The court granted the request for voluntary remand in November, and sustained the agency’s reversal in position on May 23, Commerce said. CIT didn’t issue any opinions related to the proceeding.