Importer North American Interpipe and exporter Interpipe Ukraine reached a settlement with the Commerce Department in the companies' lawsuit seeking a deduction in the exporter's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs paid in an antidumping duty proceeding. The parties agreed that within 10 days of the court entering judgment, Commerce will amend the final results of the first administrative review of the AD order on oil country tubular goods from Ukraine and set the AD margin for Interpipe Ukraine at 0.01% (Interpipe Ukraine v. United States, CIT # 22-00066).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
After a remand, the Commerce Department once again refused to exclude certain steel products from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties even though their importer can’t get the needed materials domestically, that importer said in March 8 comments. Instead, it claimed, the department continued to simply rely on the word of its competitor (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).
The Court of International Trade on April 8 referred LE Commodities' challenge to 14 denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The order was penned by Judge M. Miller Baker, who gave the parties until July 8 to complete the mediation, unless Gordon "recommends an extension" (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).
The Court of International Trade on March 20 sustained the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate goods from Brazil with other countries that are part of the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the commission's analysis didn't "engage in impermissibly 'circular' reasoning," the ITC's treatment of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs didn't impermissibly depart from past agency practice and the commission appropriately explained its decision not to cumulate Brazil's goods.
The Court of International Trade said the Commerce Department must file remand results in a Section 232 exclusion request challenge from NLMK Pennsylvania on April 8 "unless the parties have executed a settlement agreement before that date" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).
Importer Seneca Foods Corp. opposed the U.S. attempt to extend the deadline to file its remand results in a suit on the Commerce Department's decision to reject the company's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The government asked for another 31 days to file its remand decision after initially being given 90 days to conduct the remand and a 45-day extension (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Turkey will appeal a World Trade Organization dispute panel finding against its retaliatory duties on certain U.S. goods, the WTO announced Jan. 31. Because the Appellate Body is nonfunctional as the U.S. prevents vacancies from being filled, the appeal goes "into the void." As a result, Turkey's tariffs may stand without further rebuke from the WTO.
Expect new EU action at the World Trade Organization in 2024, four Akin attorneys said in a Jan. 23 blog poost. With the exceptions of 2023 and 2007, the EU has filed at least one complaint every year since 1995, and is expected to "go back on the offensive" by starting at least one or two WTO spats this year, the attorneys said.