The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department illegally found that steel plate cost fluctuations in the production of utility scale wind towers were unrelated to the physical characteristics of the finished wind towers, antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While Commerce said its decision to weight-average Dongkuk's reported steel plate costs for all reported control numbers (CONNUMs) was needed to "mitigate the cost differences unrelated to the product physical characteristics," Dongkuk said this approach was not backed by enough evidence (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).
Finished door thresholds already found to be outside the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China cannot constitute covered merchandise for the purposes of an Enforce and Protect Act evasion investigation, Columbia Aluminum said in an April 6 brief at the Court of International Trade (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00185).
Net wraps used for bailing hay are properly classified as warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00, the DOJ argued in an April 10 opening brief filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. RKW Klerks appealed the Court of International Trade's Oct. 4 decision that held that the net wraps are warp knit fabric rather than RKW's preferred classification as "parts of agricultural machines" under HTS subheading 8433.90.50 (see 2210050032) (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).
A domestic steel company is challenging the Commerce Department's finding in a countervailing duty administrative review that electricity in South Korea that was provided for less than adequate remuneration conferred no benefit. CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. also argued in its complaint at the Court of International Trade that Commerce was required verify questionnaire responses from the South Korean government regarding the provision of the electricity (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00058).
The U.S. will not participate in the appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Court of International Trade improperly granted an injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits on steel nails from Oman. The government sent a letter to the appellate court telling it that it didn't file a notice of appeal in the case, so it will not be filing a brief nor participating in any oral argument (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed Cir. # 23-1661).
DOJ argued that its counterclaims against an importer in a tariff classification case on dried botanicals should be sustained by the Court of International Trade, despite similar counterclaims being rejected. In an April 6 brief, DOJ said that the importer, Second Nature Designs, claimed "only that the Government has failed to state a claim" and that "such a claim is barred by the statutory finality of liquidation" (see 2303030015) rather than making a jurisdictional argument (Second Nature Designs v. U.S., CIT # 18-00131).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade dismissed on April 5 an antidumping duty case from Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. for failing to file a complaint "within the period prescribed by" the U.S. Code. The exporter filed the case to contest the Commerce Department's final results of the 2020-21 administrative review of the AD order on corrosion-resistant steel products from Taiwan. The case was dismissed fir lack of prosecution under CIT rules (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00052).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire's motion to expedite briefing in an appeal of a Court of International Trade decision to grant an injunction against AD cash deposits. Judge Kara Stoll said that Mid Continent can continue to self-expedite its own briefs, but that it "has not made a sufficient showing to shorten the time for" exporter and appellee Oman Fasteners (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).