Interpipe Ukraine and North American Interpipe dropped an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade concerning the legality of deducting from a company's U.S. price the amount of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The case was stayed pending resolution of an action brought by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the same issue. In that case, the appellate court said the Commerce Department can legally make this deduction (see 2305160037) (Interpipe Ukraine v. United States, CIT # 21-00530).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in an antidumping duty proceeding. Judge Jane Restani said the issue had already been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Commerce. The judge's one-page opinion on the 2018-19 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey is identical to two of the court's orders issued prior, concluding similar suits also brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann on the 2019-20 and 2020-21 reviews of the AD order (see 2305160037) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00132).
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari's complaint challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to institute a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey should be dismissed because it's moot after the ITC subsequently decided to conduct a sunset review, the U.S. and five U.S. steel companies led by Cleveland-Cliffs argued in a pair of briefs (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00350).
Commerce misconstrued its own regulations when it ordered CBP to liquidate entries of Goodluck India's cold drawn mechanical tubing from India at a 33.7% adverse facts available antidumping duty rate derived from a subsequent court decision, rather than the zero percent rate that was actually in effect at the time of entry, the company said in a May 15 brief at the Court of International Trade (Goodluck India v. U.S., CIT # 22-00024).
The Court of International Trade acted on its own initiative to order a "sua sponte" stay in a case on whether the Commerce Department lawfully found that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) did not reimburse its affiliate BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) for antidumping duties on imports of hot-rolled steel flat products. Judge Richard Eaton said the case, which concerns the third administrative review of the AD order on these products from Australia, shares an identical issue with the U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S. case, which deals with the second administrative review of the same AD order. "That is, the sole issue in the prior U.S. Steel Corp. case was the reimbursement of antidumping duties -- one of two issues in the present case," Eaton said (U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00528).
Importer Repwire and exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's withdrawal of a separate-rate questionnaire it erroneously issued to Jin Tiong in an antidumping duty review. According to the notice of appeal, the companies will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said Commerce's rejection of Jin Tiong's answers as untimely was proper since the agency had withdrawn the questionnaire before the exporter submitted its response (see 2303200039) (Repwire v. United States, CIT # 22-00016).
The Court of International Trade should dismiss a government counterclaim of unpaid duties in a classification case on dried botanicals imported by Second Nature Designs because DOJ pointed to no authority that gave it a cause of action to assert a claim to collect duties in excess of those assessed during final liquidation, Second Nature said in a May 17 brief in support of its motion to dismiss the counterclaim (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT # 18-00131).
The Court of International Trade granted exporter M S International's motion to dismiss three of its cases contesting the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on quartz surface products from Turkey. No reason was provided by M S International's counsel as to why the cases were being dropped (M S International v. United States, CIT # 20-00137).
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from an exporter's U.S. price in an antidumping duty proceeding. Judge Jane Restani said the issue had already been resolved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Commerce. The judge's one-page opinion on the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey is identical to the court's order two days prior, concluding a similar suit also brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann on the 2020-21 review of the AD order (see 2305160037) (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 22-00057).
Commerce correctly used adverse facts available against Korean exporter SeAH Steel for its failure to cooperate in a countervailing duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Korea, DOJ said in its May 16 reply at the Court of International Trade. The government argued that Commerce correctly found that the Export-Import Bank of Korea's (KEXIM's) Performance Guarantee program provided a countervailable benefit using AFA (SeAH Steel Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00338).