In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. and defendant-appellee petitioners fought back against an importer’s opening brief that argued a Commerce Department scope ruling “would overturn more than 10 years of black-letter law” (Valeo North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1189).

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 5 that the Commerce Department properly countervailed the Port of Incheon program in South Korea. Filing a response to respondent Hyundai Steel Co., the government said that key Federal Circuit precedent -- AK Steel Corp. v. U.S. -- controls in this instance in that the agency wasn't required to consider Hyundai's construction costs in building the port (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade granted importer Blockstream Services USA's bid to set aside the court's dismissal of the company's customs suit on the classification of its cryptocurrency miners. The suit was dismissed for failure to prosecute after Blockstream didn't move to extend the time for the case to remain on the customs case management calendar (see 2404030045). Blockstream had apologized to the court for the calendaring error that led to the dismissal. Judge Gary Katzmann granted the motion, and the case will remain on the case management calendar through March 31, 2026 (Blockstream Services USA v. United States, CIT # 22-00101).

An importer sought summary judgment April 3, arguing that their goods were physically and chemically different than tapered roller bearings and shouldn't be covered by an antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. It accused the Commerce Department of enlarging the scope of the order (Precision Components v. U.S., CIT # 23-00218).

In April 3 oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government said that the 1930 Tariff Act was recently amended to “explicitly not require” the Commerce Department to show that an exporter’s rate reflects its commercial reality (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2241).

In choosing a second mandatory respondent for a nearly 5-year-old Chinese passenger vehicle and light truck tires antidumping review and removing separate status from four other exporters that refused to participate, the Commerce Department fully complied with a 2023 Court of International Trade remand order (see 2302020032), the government said April 2 (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

The U.S. and steel slab importer NLMK Pennsylvania on April 4 settled the importer’s 2021 case contesting the Commerce Department’s denial of its 58 exclusion requests that certain steel articles be excluded from Section 232 duties (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 21-0507).

The Court of International Trade on April 4 upheld the Commerce Department's use of the invoice date rather than the contract date for the date of sale for respondents Kaptan Demir and Colakoglu Metalurji in the 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey.

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann heard oral arguments April 1 in an Australian hot-rolled steel exporter’s challenge of an International Trade Commission's decision in an injury investigation to cumulate that exporter’s products with merchandise from other countries. The exporter argues that it also has invested $2.5 million into a U.S. manufacturing plant, so it has no incentive to injure its own domestic market (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).