The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping duty respondents HiSTeel and Dong-A-Steel failed to exhaust their administrative remedies over their claims that the Commerce Department illegally used the Cohen's d test when rooting out "masked dumping," AD petitioner Nucor Tubular Products argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs had seven weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released an opinion calling the use of the test into question until the end of the deadline for factual information, yet the respondents did not add the opinion to the record (HiSteel v. U.S., CIT #22-00142).
The Court of International Trade should expedite briefing on exporter Oman Fasteners' bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued in a Dec. 26 brief, saying the "severe, ongoing, and irreparable harm" caused by a "draconian 154.33% duty rate" threatens to put the company out of business. In its unopposed motion, the AD respondent said it already has had to stop all U.S. shipments of its goods subject to the duties and unless it can "quickly resume U.S. sales, and maintain them during the pendency of this case," it will "face insolvency through default on its existing financial obligations" or suffer irreparable harm (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #22-00348).
The Commerce Department violated the law when it used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review, plaintiff-appellants led by Cheng CH International argued in a Dec. 23 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appealing a Court of International Trade ruling upholding the rate, the appellant said the "punitive, total AFA rate" Commerce assigned the non-individually examined respondents was not based on their actual dumping margin (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2128).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should let the U.S. add a key "Deficiencies Memorandum" to the record of an antidumping duty case since the document was "intertwined" with the AD proceeding's final results, petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition argued in a Dec. 21 reply brief. Arguing the memorandum is part of the record "as a matter of law" since it was "considered by agency decision-makers," the petitioner opposed the initiative from the Grupo Simec-led plaintiffs to oppose the addition of the memo to the record (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).
The Court of International Trade in a confidential Dec. 22 opinion upheld parts of and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In a letter, Judge Richard Easton said he wishes to issue a public version of the opinion in the "near future," giving parties until Jan. 3 to review any confidential information in the opinion. The case, which has over 40 plaintiffs, concerns Commerce's decision to hit separate rate respondents with the China-wide dumping rate and to calculate a simple averaged rate instead of a weighted average margin for the separate rate respondents (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00144).
Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co., ASF-K de Mexico, Strato and TTX will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing their attorney misconduct suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to a Dec. 22 notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Questions arose over whether the plaintiffs would actually appeal the case after the trade court rejected a proposed injunction that would bar ARC's former counsel and his firm from accessing confidential information in the underlying International Trade Commission proceeding (see 2212200033) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00307).
The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood from China. In all, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves looked at the six issues and sided with Commerce: (1) Commerce's calculation of normal value for respondent Linyi Chengen using its normal methodology and not its alternative input methodology; (2) Commerce's surrogate value data and calculation for Linyi Chengen's log inputs; (3) the agency's surrogate value calculation for labor; (4) whether a reply brief from the plaintiffs raises new arguments and has new information; (5) the surrogate value for Linyi Chengen's formaldehyde input; and (6) Commerce's selection of financial statements and calculation of surrogate financial ratios.
The Court of International Trade must not dismiss a case accusing importer Wanxiang America of gross negligence in its entries of wheel hub assemblies, radial ball and tapered roller bearings and universal joints from China, DOJ argued in a Dec. 21 opposition motion. The case addresses what DOJ calls "multiple grossly negligent and negligent violations" of Section 592 in connection with entries of wheel hub assemblies made between October 2007 and September 2012 that purportedly resulted in millions of dollars of lost duties for the government (United States v. Wanxiang America, CIT #22-00205).