The Commerce Department erred by calculating a single weighted-averge steel plate cost for all home and U.S. market sales in the 2020-21 antidumping duty administrative review on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, respondent Dongkuk S&C Co. argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. In the review, Commerce disregarded the actual steel plate costs linked with each individual project, via cost "smoothing" (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00075).
The Court of International Trade should overturn the Commerce Department's denials of Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products by Seneca Foods, because the denials ignored evidence against an objector's claim that it could provide domestic tin mill products to make up the shortfall, Seneca argued in a May 2 reply brief (Seneca Foods Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s determination that the South Korean government did not subsidize Hyundai Steel by providing electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR), the DOJ argued in an April 28 motion. The motion came in reply to requests for judgment filed by Hyundai Steel and consolidated-plaintiff Nucor, which contested separate aspects of the final results of a 2019 countervailing duty review on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).
The Commerce Department's denial of LE Commodities' 14 requests for exclusions from paying Section 232 duties on speciality steel products constitutes a "blatant disregard of its obligation to engage in fair, reasoned decision-making," LE Commodities said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The agency failed to consider evidence establishing that the steel products were not reasonably available in the U.S. in a "sufficient quantity," the importer said, and didn't provide a sufficiently reasoned basis for each of its decisions rejecting the exclusion requests (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).
CBP illegally denied importer Atlas Power's protest claiming its NVIDIA CMP 170HX printed circuit assemblies were exempt from Section 301 duties, Atlas said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said its assemblies, classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.30.1180, qualify for a Section 301 exclusion for unfinished logic boards (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).
Worn clothing commingled with other apparel bound for recycling should be eligible for duty-free treatment, importer Dis Vintage argued in a May 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The merchandise at issue is worn clothing imported to be recycled or for continued use as clothing. Dis Vintage asked the court to find the worn clothing was properly classified under the duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6309.00.100 and to refund all duties plus interest (Dis Vintage v. U.S., CIT # 23-00033).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative was within its discretion when it declined to reinstate a Section 301 tariff exclusion on water coolers even after the only opposing party withdrew its comments, the DOJ said in an April 28 response to DS Services of America's remand comments at the Court of International Trade (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT # 22-00157).
Counterweights for mini-excavators are "backhoe" parts and should not be excluded from Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in an April 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief bolstered the government's January motion for judgment (see 2301240063) by arguing that the Bobcat mini-excavators that the counterweights are "designed for and exclusively used on" are themselves "backhoes" (Norca Engineered Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00305)
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty review on activated carbon from China. In an April 28 opinion, Judge Mark Barnett said the court was satisfied with the agency's further explanation of its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and its selection of financial statements used to calculate surrogate ratios.
The South Korean government doesn't provide a countervailable subsidy to the South Korean steel industry through the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade ruled April 28. Judge Mark Barnett sustained the results of the Commerce Department's 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Barnett said Commerce has considerable leeway to make reasonable methodological choices like it did in the review.