The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's remand redetermination concerning an antidumping duty review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea still suffers from "legal and factual flaws" despite the correct conclusion that no particular market situation existed that distorted the costs of production, Nexteel said in its Dec. 2 comments to the Court of International Trade. Nexteel told the court that, due to what it sees as the correct conclusion, CIT should sustain the remand redetermination but should force Commerce to reconsider the PMS issue should it come up before the court in the future (Nexteel and Seah Steel v. U.S. and U.S. Steel CIT # 18-00083).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly granted antidumping duty respondents a constructed export price offset in an AD review, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While AD petitioner Wheatland Tube "is correct" in arguing that the party seeking the offset has the burden of establishing the amount and nature of a particular adjustment, Commerce in this case reasonably found that "due to prior practice in this proceeding of accepting comparable information and analyses as sufficient to grant a CEP offset that Commerce should continue to grant a CEP offset in this review" (Wheatland Tube v. United States, CIT #22-00160).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty review challenge at the Court of International Trade, led by Grupo Simec, filed their opposition on Dec. 2 to the Commerce Department's move to add a memorandum to the administrative record. The plaintiffs said the move to add the memo -- a questionnaire deficiencies analysis for AD respondent Grupo Simec -- more than four months after the record closed was illegal because the document had never been "filed, published" or otherwise sent to the parties (Grupo Simec v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
The U.S. and Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Texarkana Aluminum "failed to address the determinations challenged by" plaintiff AA Metals "in any meaningful way, often ignoring or misconstruing the issues" in the case and playing a "game of gotcha," AA Metals argued in a Dec. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. In particular, the U.S. pushed "the same flawed analysis" from the Commerce Department's scope finding by arguing that certain [redacted] temper products are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 2 order, denied a petition from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co. for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case over whether a protest is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Nov. 30 in an antidumping case brought by Hitachi Energy USA after it denied the plaintiff-appellee's rehearing bid. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said Hyundai had the right to supplement the record and that Commerce can't claim the company shirked its obligations in the review (see 2205240028). Hitachi, successor to one of the original antidumping duty petitioners in the case, filed for a rehearing. In its response, the government said that it takes no position regarding the merits of the petition itself, but does argue that the court should decline the rehearing because the appeal "does not involve a matter of exceptional importance" (see 2208100008) (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 20-2114).
CBP erred when it assessed antidumping and countervailing duties on imported sinks and kits from Taiwan as if they had originated from China, importer and seller RH Peterson said in a Nov. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).