Richard W. Goldberg

The case concerns the United States Department of Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination in the 2015 administrative review of a countervailing duty order on off-the-road tires from China. After a prior remand, Commerce removed the subsidy rate for the Export Buyer’s Credit Program and recalculated the duty rate for Guizhou Tyre Co. and related companies to 29.44 percent. The court sustained this redetermination, finding it compliant with the remand order and supported by substantial evidence on the record, with no party objecting to the outcome.

business & regulatory

This case involves a challenge by CP Kelco US, Inc., a domestic manufacturer of xanthan gum, to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on xanthan gum from China. The U.S. Court of International Trade, following a mandate from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sustains Commerce's third redetermination of the dumping margin for the Chinese producers. The court upholds Commerce's treatment of Xanthomonas campestris as an asset rather than a direct material input and its use of Thai Ajinomoto financial statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios, as these decisions were affirmed or reinstated by the appellate court. The resulting dumping margin for the respondents is 8.69%.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Chinese tire manufacturers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty determination on off-the-road tires imported from China. Commerce had initially applied adverse facts available after concluding that it could not verify the companies' claims of non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, but on remand it determined based on customer declarations and other record evidence that the plaintiffs had not used the program. The court sustained Commerce's remand redetermination, finding that the record sufficiently demonstrated non-use and that Commerce had not identified a verifiable gap in the evidence that would justify an adverse inference. The decision rests on the statutory requirements for applying adverse facts available under U.S. trade law and the adequacy of the evidence provided by the respondents.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge by Chinese tire producers to the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty determination on off-the-road tires imported from China during 2015, specifically regarding subsidies under the Export Buyer’s Credit Program and alleged distortion in the domestic synthetic rubber market. The court upheld Commerce’s conclusion that the synthetic rubber market was not distorted, citing evidence of significantly higher import penetration compared to the prior year. However, the court found that Commerce lacked substantial evidence to apply adverse facts available against the plaintiffs for alleged use of the Export Buyer’s Credit Program, because no adequate gap existed in the record after the plaintiffs submitted non-use declarations from U.S. customers. The court therefore remanded the EBCP issue for Commerce to attempt verification of those declarations using available tools while sustaining all other aspects of the agency’s redetermination.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge to the Department of Commerce's scope ruling on whether Lyke Industrial Tool's cupwheels fell within the scope of an antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts from China. Commerce had determined the cupwheels were outside the order based on their physical characteristics and uses under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) factors, but the court found this analysis incomplete because it left unanswered questions about segment attachment and thickness relative to the core. The court remanded the matter, holding that the (k)(1) sources did not definitively answer the scope question and requiring Commerce to conduct a full inquiry using the (k)(2) factors. The decision emphasized that Commerce must provide a reasoned explanation connecting facts to its conclusions when proceeding under the regulatory framework.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a challenge by Chinese tire manufacturers to the Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of countervailing duties on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires from China for 2014. After an initial remand, Commerce adjusted its calculations for ocean freight benchmarks and a VAT program but reaffirmed its use of adverse facts available (AFA) regarding the Export Buyer's Credit Program, claiming gaps in the record due to non-cooperation by the Chinese government. The court holds that Commerce's revised explanation still fails to identify a verifiable gap in the record or demonstrate why verification of non-use declarations is impossible, violating 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. As a result, the court remands the AFA determination for further reconsideration consistent with the statute and prior order.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a challenge by the Rebar Trade Action Coalition to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of a countervailing duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. The plaintiff disputed Commerce's method for calculating a benchmark price for natural gas subsidies provided by the Turkish government, arguing it should average prices from multiple countries rather than using only adjusted Azerbaijani prices. The court upheld Commerce's determinations, concluding that they were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law because only Azerbaijani prices could be properly adjusted for transportation via pipeline to Turkey, and other prices like those from Europe lacked such connections or adjustability. Commerce exercised its discretion under regulations to use a single suitable world market price when averaging was not practicable due to distortions or unavailability.

business & regulatory

The case involved Target General Merchandise challenging U.S. Customs' classification of imported stringed light sets under the HTSUS as 'lighting sets of a kind used for Christmas trees' at 8% duty, arguing instead for classification as 'other electric lamps and lighting fittings' at 3.9% duty. The court granted Target's motion for summary judgment and denied the government's cross-motion, determining that the light sets (black-corded and white-corded) were not principally used as Christmas tree lights and were not commercially fungible with such lights based on physical characteristics, principal use, and sales environment. The reasoning centered on undisputed facts showing the lights' design for general decoration or Halloween use rather than Christmas trees, leading to classification under subheading 9405.40.8000.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Korean exporters Solianus, Inc. and Consolidated Fibers, Inc. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final antidumping duty determination on fine denier polyester staple fiber from Korea. Commerce had assigned an all-others rate of 30.15 percent to non-investigated companies by averaging the rates of three mandatory respondents, two of which received 45.23 percent based on total adverse facts available after failing to cooperate. The plaintiffs argued that this methodology was improper and produced an unreasonably high rate. The court sustained Commerce's approach, holding that the statute and precedents allow averaging rates from individually investigated firms, including those based on adverse facts available, and that the plaintiffs had not shown the rate was misapplied or unrepresentative.

business & regulatory

This case involved Chinese tire manufacturers challenging the Department of Commerce's determinations in an administrative review of countervailing duties on off-the-road tires from China. The plaintiffs contested Commerce's benchmark calculations for subsidies, its use of adverse facts available regarding the Export Buyer’s Credit Program, and its decision to countervail the Processing Trade Program. The court sustained Commerce's decision on the Processing Trade Program and certain benchmark calculations but remanded the adverse facts available finding on the Export Buyer’s Credit Program due to unsupported conclusions about missing information and verifiability. It also remanded for further explanation on market distortion findings for synthetic rubber, noting inconsistencies with prior reviews.

business & regulatory

This case involved Austrian steel producers challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's methodology for identifying comparable foreign products in an antidumping duty investigation of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate. The court had previously remanded the final determination because the original model-match approach failed to sufficiently differentiate products based on alloy content, contrary to statutory requirements for fair comparisons of identical or similar merchandise. On remand, Commerce revised its hierarchy of product characteristics and adopted an alternative CONNUM methodology proposed by the plaintiffs. The court sustained the remand results, concluding that the updated methodology accounted for commercially significant physical differences, aligned with the statute, and was supported by substantial evidence.

business & regulatory

This case concerns a challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's countervailing duty determination on certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India. In an earlier decision, the court remanded the matter because Commerce had applied adverse facts available without substantial evidence showing a gap in the record regarding information from JSW's affiliate Salav. On remand, Commerce recalculated JSW's CVD rate at 4.24 percent without applying adverse facts available or considering any subsidies to Salav. The court sustains the remand results, finding that Commerce complied with the prior order and that the determination is now supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge to the Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping duty investigation of xanthan gum from China, specifically Commerce's repeated selection of financial statements from Thai Ajinomoto over those from Thai Fermentation to calculate surrogate financial ratios. After four prior remands, Commerce's latest results used the Thai Fermentation statements, which changed the weighted-average dumping margin for the respondent to zero percent. The court sustained the remand results, finding them supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law because Commerce had made a sufficiently fact-specific determination that the missing translations in the Thai Fermentation statements were not vital to the reliability of the depreciation and overhead calculations. The court rejected arguments for alternative methodologies as beyond the scope of its review.

business & regulatory

This case involved SeAH Steel VINA Corporation's challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final antidumping duty determination on oil country tubular goods from Vietnam. After two prior remands, Commerce addressed issues including the surrogate value for hot-rolled coil J55-H using adjusted market economy purchase prices, the valuation of domestic inland insurance based on supplemented Agro Dutch data, and the allocation of domestic brokerage and handling costs using the Doing Business Report. The court reviewed these findings under the substantial evidence standard and sustained Commerce's determinations on all issues, entering final judgment for the defendant. The opinion assumes familiarity with prior proceedings and focuses on whether the remand redetermination complied with the court's directives and applicable law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. and NAC Group Limited sought to challenge the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's administration and enforcement of the Department of Commerce's final results in antidumping duty administrative reviews covering chlorinated isocyanurates from China, specifically contesting the assessment of duties on certain unreported entries at the PRC-wide rate and the application of Commerce's 15-day liquidation instruction policy. The government moved to dismiss the complaint under U.S. Court of International Trade Rules 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiffs alleged no cognizable injury from the 15-day policy because they had obtained a liquidation injunction in a separate action and filed this suit more than ten months after the final results, and that the core dispute concerned Commerce's distinction between sales and entries rather than any rushed liquidation caused by the policy. The court concluded that Count IV of the complaint failed to state any injury and dismissed the action in full.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge by JSW Steel Ltd. and its affiliate to the Department of Commerce’s final countervailing duty determination on certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India. Commerce had applied adverse facts available in calculating JSW’s duty rate based on an affiliate’s subsidies after JSW provided information about that affiliate late in the proceeding. The Court of International Trade held that substantial evidence did not support Commerce’s conclusion that JSW had withheld requested information, as the record showed no basis under the statute for using facts available. The court therefore remanded the determination with instructions to recalculate JSW’s rate without regard to the affiliate or its subsidies.

business & regulatory

This case concerns the U.S. Department of Commerce's selection of financial statements to calculate surrogate financial ratios in its antidumping investigation of xanthan gum from China. After three prior remands, the court again remands Commerce's determination that the Thai Ajinomoto statements were preferable to the Thai Fermentation statements. Commerce had rejected the Thai Fermentation statements due to missing English translations of two paragraphs and selected the Thai Ajinomoto statements despite their evidence of countervailable subsidies. The court found that Commerce failed to provide an even-handed comparison or a sufficient justification under its own practices for rejecting the Thai Fermentation statements, leaving no basis to continue remanding for further explanation. The court orders Commerce to use the Thai Fermentation statements to recalculate the weighted-average dumping margins.

business & regulatory

This case involved Chinese producers and exporters of xanthan gum challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in antidumping duty administrative reviews covering July 2013 through June 2015. Plaintiffs contested Commerce's application of facts otherwise available and adverse facts available, which led to imposition of the China-wide rate of 154.07% based on questionnaire responses about U.S. sales arrangements. The court sustained Commerce's determinations, holding that the agency lawfully applied the statutory provisions to select from record rates, including the country-wide rate, despite plaintiffs' eligibility for a separate rate. Core reasoning emphasized Commerce's discretion under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 to choose an available rate when adverse facts available apply.

business & regulatory

The case involved Chinese companies challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. The companies disputed Commerce's use of facts available and adverse facts available, which resulted in the application of a China-wide antidumping duty rate of 154.07% due to incomplete information on sales agreements. The court sustained Commerce's determinations, finding that the agency properly applied the relevant statutes and had discretion to select the country-wide rate from the record, even where the companies had shown entitlement to a separate rate. The decision was based on the companies' failure to fully respond to questionnaires regarding their U.S. sales arrangements across two review periods.

business & regulatory

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involved a dispute over the tariff classification of key-operated entry door locks imported by Home Depot. Customs and Border Protection classified the articles under HTSUS subheading 8301.40.6030, carrying a 5.7% duty rate, while Home Depot argued they should fall under subheading 8302.41.6045 at 3.9%. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, finding that the merchandise is described in whole by heading 8301 as key-operated locks suitable for doors. Applying GRI 1, the court determined that the articles' locking function with keys places them squarely under 8301 rather than the broader fittings or mountings in heading 8302, and noted that similar but non-key-operated items like privacy knobs are excluded from 8301 by its terms.

business & regulatory