Court of International Trade

The Court of International Trade again remanded the final results from the 2007-08 antidumping administrative review of tapered roller bearings from China (A-570-601). The court had remanded in late 2011 on Commerce’s surrogate values used to determine Peer Bearing Company-Changshan’s (CPZ) AD rate, as well as its country of origin determination that finished bearings processed in and exported from Thailand from Chinese-origin unfinished bearings are subject merchandise (see 11112218). On remand, CIT sustained the agency’s redeterminations of the surrogate values at issue, which caused CPZ’s AD rate to fall from 24.62 to 7.37 percent. But it rejected Commerce’s insistence on continuing to find the country of origin for the Thai-finished roller bearings as China and not Thailand.

The Court of International Trade remanded parts of the 2008-09 countervailing duty administrative review on citric acid from China (C-570-938) related to Commerce’s calculation of inputs for less-than-adequate remuneration (LTAR) subsidies for RZBC. The court found that Commerce didn’t adequately explain its non-decision on a steam coal LTAR subsidy, and didn’t consider some evidence on pricing benchmarks it used to measure LTAR subsidy amounts.

The Court of International Trade again remanded the final results of the 2008-09 antidumping duty administrative review on folding metal-top ironing tables from China (A-570-888). CIT’s first remand in August, which was not published as a slip opinion, focused on Commerce’s cotton fabric surrogate value calculation, financial statement selection, and brokerage and handling calculations for respondents Since Hardware and Foshan Shunde. This time, the court sustained some elements of Commerce’s remand redetermination, but again remanded for Commerce reconsideration of financial statement selection and brokerage and handling calculations.

The 30-day period to challenge scope rulings in court begins on the date the scope ruling is mailed by the Commerce Department, and is not triggered by email communications, said the Court of International Trade as it dismissed Medline Industries’ challenge. Medline had filed suit after Commerce emailed its lawyer a copy of the adverse scope ruling on wooden bedroom furniture from China. But the snail mail scope ruling from a month later actually triggered the period for filing suit, even though Commerce had allegedly misrepresented that no physically mailed scope ruling would be forthcoming. The case will proceed regardless, as Medline filed a separate challenge following its second receipt of the scope ruling. The company expressed concern, however, at the cost of having to appeal this dismissal of its first suit to protect itself from a jurisdictional challenge.

The Court of International Trade upheld a Commerce Department ruling that found magnesia alumina carbon bricks to be within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks (A-570-954 / C-570-955). CIT agreed with Commerce that the magnesia alumina carbon bricks (MACBs) meet the scope’s plain language and are interchangeable with in-scope magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs). CIT also said Commerce acted reasonably in using 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) factors to determine whether MACBs were covered under the scope, since (k)(1) evidence was ambiguous. Fedmet Resources Corporation, the steel and high temperature product company that appealed Commerce’s scope ruling, argued the final scope evidence was insufficient. Fedmet also said the steel industry considers MACBs distinct products from MCBs. CIT, however, said the characteristics MACBs exhibit due to spinel -- a mineral created when the bricks are heated which improves brick performance -- are the same as characteristics of in-scope MCBs that set it apart from other refractory products. Commerce also correctly interpreted the manner of MACB advertisements and the ultimate use of low-alumina MACBs in its scope ruling, CIT said.

The Court of International Trade sustained a Commerce Department scope ruling that found Power Train Components’ wheel hub units are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China (A-570-601). CIT agreed with the agency that the wheel hub units without antilock braking (ABS) sensors are covered by the scope language addressing “tapered roller housings … whether or not for automotive use.” In support, the court noted that the ITC injury report from the investigation identified wheel hub units as a type of tapered roller bearing, and depictions of wheel hub units were included in the original petition. The court then looked at Commerce’s determination that Power Train’s wheel hub units incorporating ABS sensors are within the scope, and found Commerce’s analysis of each of the 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) factors -- physical characteristics, expectations of ultimate purchasers, ultimate use, channels of trade, and manner of display and advertising -- to be reasonable.

The Senate confirmed the nominations of Brooklyn Law School professor Claire Kelly and Commerce Department staffer Mark Barnett to be judges on the Court of International Trade May 23. Barnett has been deputy chief counsel in the Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration at Commerce since 2005 (see 12071314). Kelly is also chair of the Court of International Trade Bar Association subcommittee on trade adjustment assistance (see 12111526).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department’s decision to end an antidumping new shipper review for a Chinese company because of a single sale of subject merchandise produced by a manufacturer subject to the original investigation. Pujiang Talent Diamond Tools challenged the agency’s rescission of a new shipper review of diamond sawblades from China (A-570-900), arguing that, despite such a requirement in Commerce’s regulations, rescinding on the basis of a single sale went too far. But the court found that a decision by Commerce to go against its own regulations and not rescind wasn’t a choice the agency could make.

The Court of International Trade sent back to the Commerce Department its final results from the 2008-09 antidumping administrative review and new shipper review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (A-552-801). Commerce itself requested remands on several issues related to valuation of surrogate inputs. In response to challenges by domestic industry, CIT also remanded the agency’s selection of Bangladesh instead of the Philippines as the surrogate country, as well as allegations of ministerial errors.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a lower court decision affirming the non-individual separate rate calculated for Yangzhou Bestpak in the antidumping duty investigation on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China (A-570-952). The Commerce Department had assigned Yangzhou Bestpak an AD rate based on a simple average of the two mandatory respondents’ AD rates. One of the mandatory respondents had a de minimis AD rate, while the other had been assigned an adverse facts available rate because of noncooperation, which meant Yangzhou Bestpak’s simple average AD rate was half of the AFA rate, despite the company’s cooperation.