The Court of International Trade denied plaintiff Nucor's motion for a stay in a countervailing duty case, finding that the steel producer's arguments were "not persuasive." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the stay in an Aug. 23 order, declaring a stay pending resolution of another action over the same countervailing duty review "would delay the just and speedy resolution of this litigation" (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).
Protests are not a prerequisite for Section 301 refunds on goods retroactively excluded from the duties on them and the government overstepped its authority in imposing such a requirement, Environment One argued in an Aug. 18 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop its particular market situation adjustment for a key input of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea in an antidumping duty review. Commerce had previously dropped the PMS adjustment for one of review's mandatory respondents but not the other. In the case's fourth remand results, the agency dropped the adjustment for the other, lowering non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77%. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the move to drop the adjustment for the other respondent.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit assigned three cases to the same merits panel in a text-only note. The cases, led by Adee Honey Farms, Hilex Poly and American Drew, argue that the text of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 as enacted by Congress expressly requires that CBP distribute "all interest" associated with antidumping and countervailing duties to affected domestic producers. CBP contested this, arguing that delinquency interest is not included in CDSOA distributions. The Court of International Trade ruled in CBP's favor, finding that customs was right to deny payouts of delinquency interest (see 2206160074) (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).
The Court of International Trade should consolidate two cases -- one of which is already a consolidated action brought by two importers -- because they both are challenging the same Enforce and Protect Act determination, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 19 brief. The cases -- one led by Far East American, the other led by InterGlobal Forest -- argue that CBP wasn't authorized to initiate the EAPA investigation and that CBP violated the plaintiffs' due process rights, and should be consolidated to preserve judicial efficiency, the U.S. said (Far East American v. U.S., CIT #22-00213) (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #22-00214).
The Court of International Trade should send back the Commerce Department's constructed value (CV) profit rate for antidumping respondent Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) if the court does not uphold the de minimis rate calculated by Commerce on remand, BSM argued in Aug. 19 comments. Arguing that the remand results should be sustained, BSM, replying to the AD petitioner, continued to critique the CV profit rate in case the de minimis rate is not upheld (Building Systems de Mexico v. United States, CIT #20-00069).
Importer Mirror Metals and the Commerce Department need more time to work out the details of refunding Section 232 duties following Commerce's decision to grant retroactive tariff exclusion bids, according to an Aug. 22 status report filed with the Court of International Trade (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00144).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 19 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case brought by Prime Time Commerce. In June, the appellate court ruled that Prime Time failed to exhaust its administrative remedies for its argument that the Commerce Department should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide antidumping margin (see 2206280038). The Federal Circuit further ruled that while CIT and Commerce erred in not accepting Prime Time's submissions since it is an "interested party," the error was a harmless one. The case concerned the administrative review of the AD order on cased pencils from China (Prime Time Commerce v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1783).
The Commerce Department in Aug. 22 comments at the Court of International Trade urged acceptance of its remand results in which it verified that a countervailing duty respondent's U.S. customers did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Commerce said that since it complied with the court's order to verify the U.S. customers' claims that they did not use the EBCP and that no parties oppose the remand, the court should uphold the decision that dropped the CVD rate from 25.90% to 15.36% (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00166).