Costs incurred by South Korean pipe producer Nexteel's suspended production lines should not have been treated as general and administrative costs by the Commerce Department during an antidumping duty review on welded line pipe from South Korea, Nexteel told the Court of International Trade in its April 5 comments on Commerce's remand results (Nexteel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03898).
Industrial shredders are not classifiable as grinding and crushing tools under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because the principal function of the machines is shredding or cutting, DOJ argued in its April 5 reply brief. DOJ asked the court to reject Vecoplan's "overly broad and strained interpretation" of "grinding" to fit its shredders into a duty-free classification (Vecoplan v. U.S., CIT # 20-00126).
A request by DOJ to add an alleged "shell company" as a defendant in a fraud and evasion penalty case was denied by the Court of International Trade in an April 4 order (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215). "Justice does not require acceptance of the amended complaint," Judge Jane Restani said in her order. If allowed, the amended complaint would have added AB MA Distribution Corp. as a defendant alongside Zhe "John" Liu.
A bid for reconsideration of a Court of International Trade decision permitting four U.S. steel companies to intervene in an ITC case (see 2303150072) is an attempt to relitigate the issue, and fails to satisfy the "high" standard for reconsideration, the U.S. steel companies said in a reply brief. The companies, Cleveland-Cliifs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, said that exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) failed to point to any specific legal authority for reconsideration of the intervention decision (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
The Commerce Department incorrectly applied adverse facts available to a Spanish olive producer and incorrectly applied a standard for determining product demand in its third administrative review of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain, the Asociación de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa (ASEMESA), Agro Sevilla and Angel Camacho said in their April 4 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Asociación de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa; Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S. Coop. And., Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L., v. U.S., CIT # 23-00076).
The Commerce Department continued to ignore a Court of International Trade remand order when it continued to refuse in its remand results to grant a changed circumstances review for GreenFirst Forest, the company said in its April 3 comments (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).
The International Trade Commission incorrectly found that imports of cut-to-length plate from Brazil did not threaten domestic producers, in its five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, domestic producer Cleveland-Cliffs said in a March 31 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 23-00050).
Brazilian honey producer Supermel didn't fail to provide information to the Commerce Department during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil and the agencyt's subsequent use of adverse facts available was incorrect, Supermel said in an April 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. U.S., CIT # 22-00185).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Entries of dual-stenciled pipe made before Commerce initiated a scope inquiry should be out of scope of an antidumping duty order on circular welded pipe, regardless of a pending appeal of that determination, Blue Pipe said in its March 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe also continued to argue that all of its imported pipe is not within scope. Even if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds the evasion determination was lawful, Blue Pipe asked it to overturn CBP’s decision to apply the evasion determination to entries made before Commerce initiated its scope inquiry (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00081).