Court of International Trade

Plaintiff Nucor Corp. ignored the "thorough explanation" that the Commerce Department gave in its remand results showing how the agency conducted its less-than-adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis regarding the electricity market in South Korea, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 reply brief. Further backing its remand at the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice argued that Commerce's remand complies with the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by properly analyzing whether the Korean Electricity Corp. (KEPCO) recovered its costs of production plus a profit (POSCO, et al. v. United States, CIT #17-00137).

SMA Surfaces, Inc., formerly known as Polarstone US, and Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. each filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging two different scope rulings on antidumping and countervailing duty orders. SMA challenged the Commerce Department's decision to not exclude three specific surface products from the AD/CVD orders on quartz surface products from China, while Cheng Shin appealed Commerce's decision to not exclude the company's light-truck spare tire models from the less-than-fair-value investigation into passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (SMA Surfaces, Inc. (F/K/A Polarstone US) v. U.S., CIT #21-00399) (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' Court of International Trade case challenging CBP's antidumping and countervailing duty evasion finding should continue, even though the relevant entries have liquidated, because the lawsuit was properly filed under Section 1581(c), the company said in a Sept. 1 reply brief. Responding to a partial motion to dismiss from the Department of Justice, Dr. Bronner's said that since the Enforce and Protect Act, under which the evasion finding was made, is codified under 19 USC 1517, the proper jurisdiction for its challenge of an EAPA investigation is Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

The Justice Department should not be permitted an extension of time to respond to a complaint and file the administrative record in a Court of International Trade challenge of Commerce Department assessment instructions issued for hot-rolled steel imported by Optima Steel International, the steel distributor said in a Sept. 7 filing, adding it is "extremely frustrated" with another request for delay. The defendant's request should be denied since it "requests far too much time to accomplish the tasks identified, and cites to no good cause other than a claim of internal deliberations that might yield a resolution," the brief said. Also, there's no reason DOJ can't answer the complaint and file the administrative record while the government discusses how to resolve the issues raised in the litigation, Optima argued. "The two are not mutually exclusive," it said (Optima Steel Internaitonal, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

The Commerce Department's proposed schedule to review Section 232 exclusion requests on remand is "necessary in light of Commerce's current limited resources," the agency said in a Sept. 9 brief. Replying to the plaintiffs' opposition to Commerce's voluntary remand motion at the Court of International Trade, the agency also urged the court to simply defer to the proposed schedule due to Commerce's limited resources and the non-prejudicial nature of the schedule to the lawsuit's parties. Many of the consolidated plaintiffs opposed the schedule, arguing that it was "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale (see 2108170072).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate Sept. 7 in a case in which it dismissed the proceedings due to a lack of jurisdiction. In its July 14 opinion, the Federal Circuit said that the Court of International Trade was correct in dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2107140028). The plaintiff, TR International Trading Co., erred when it filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction, since it could have challenged a denied protest under Section 1581(a) or a scope ruling under Section 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable, the appellate court said. In particular, TRI challenged CBP's finding that the company's citric acid imports from India were of Chinese origin and subject to AD/CV duties (TR International Trading Company, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00022). CAFC ordered TRI to pay court costs totaling $28.32 to the U.S. government.

If the Commerce Department is to deduct Section 232 national security tariffs from exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi's U.S. price in an antidumping duty rate calculation, it should do it at the original 25% rate and not the increased 50% margin subsequently announced by President Donald Trump and later invalidated by the Court of International Trade, the plaintiff said in a Sept. 3 CIT brief at the Court of International Trade (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00140).

Furniture importer Aspects Furniture International has a protectable interest in an antidumping duty evasion case at the very least due to "goodwill, reputation, and freedom to take advantage of business opportunities" concerns, the importer said in an Aug. 30 filing in the Court of International Trade. Responding to the Department of Justice's arguments countering its initial motion for judgment, AFI also said that, contrary to the government's position, CBP's limited administrative avenues to submit written arguments during the investigation were insufficient from a constitutional perspective to reject AFI's due process violation claims (Aspects Furniture International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03824).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

Defendant-intervenor ABB Enterprise Software will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding a zero percent antidumping rate for respondents Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. and Hyosung Corporation. ABB filed its intent to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 7 notice at CIT. In the case, Chief Judge Mark Barnett only upheld the Commerce Department's remand after the agency dropped its adverse inference against Hyundai and Hyosung, as part of the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea (see 2107120032). Commerce initially applied total adverse facts available to Hyundai, finding that the company understated its home market gross unit prices by failing to consistently report parts of its home market sales as foreign like product.