The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 order lifted a stay in an antidumping duty case concerning whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, despite its recent decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which said that Commerce cannot make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration conferred a non-measurable benefit in a countervailing duty review, U.S. steel company Nucor Corp. argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade. During the review, Nucor took issue with the evidentiary flaws with the cost data that Commerce used, telling the agency that it was illegal to say that the data reflected market-based costs. The suit mirrors the language in a separate case brought by Nucor over a different CVD review (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00171).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 11 order dismissed an appeal from Wheatland Tube Co. on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping matters. Wheatland moved for a voluntary dismissal, telling the court that since the key case on this issue, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., was not petitioned to the Supreme Court, the court should dismiss the appeal (see 2206280063). In Hyundai Steel, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce is not allowed to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1300).
The Court of International Trade in a July 11 order said that counsel for exporter Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. could not withdraw from Hongteo's customs classification lawsuit. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, counsel for Hongteo -- namely, Lawrence Pilon and Serhiy Kiyasov of Rock Trade Law -- could not leave the case without substitute counsel first being identified. Pilon and Kiyasov sought to withdraw as counsel since Hongteo did not pay its outstanding legal fees.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by not including exporter Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. in the all-others rate in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India, covering entries in 2019-2020, Echjay argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00172).
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the U.S.'s motion to toss a six-count case brought by CBD and hemp manufacturer ASHH over the seizure and detention of lithium-ion batteries, classified by CBP as "drug paraphernalia." Judge Robert Cleland held that the plaintiff had other remedies at law via the administrative process and that CBP's seizures are not final agency action (ASHH v. U.S., E.D. Mich. #21-11210).
The Commerce Department's admission that the administrative case brief in an antidumping duty matter wasn't the right time to bring up arguments over verification procedures reveals the futility of raising verification concerns administratively, plaintiffs led by Ellwood City Forge argued to fight off claims that it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, Ellwood said Commerce's remand results in a separate AD case declaring that 63 days was "far too late" to pursue a request for virtual verification in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 restrictions indicates that raising the issue of virtual verification in the petitioner's case was futile (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: