The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department this week stuck by its decision in an antidumping duty review on welded line pipe from South Korea to include losses on suspended product lines as part of antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s general and administrative (G&A) expenses, instead of as the cost of goods sold (Nexteel Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-03898).
The report from the commerce secretary concluding a Section 232 investigation is not "purely advisory" and actually gives the president a new power to regulate trade, so it "must be subject to judicial review" under the Administrative Procedure Act, petitioners led by USP Holdings argued at the U.S. Supreme Court in a March 2 brief (USP Holdings v. United States, U.S.C. # 22-565).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 2 deferred a U.S. motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act case to the merits panel assigned to the case. The government wanted the case tossed because all the entries at issue had been liquidated (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).
The Court of International Trade should order the Commerce Department to treat Indonesia as being at the same level of economic development as Vietnam for the purposes of an antidumping surrogate country analysis, plaintiffs, led by Catfish Farmers of America, said in a proposed remand order at the trade court March 2. The remand order would alternatively have Commerce "provide adequate explanation and support for declining to" treat Indonesia at the same level as Vietnam (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 20-00105).
The Court of International Trade on March 3 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case that slashed the dumping margin for respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries after the agency accepted the company's answers to the Section A quesitonnaire response. CIT's order came after neither Ajmal nor AD petitioner Wheatland Tube submitted comments on the remand.
Taiwanese exporter Inventec Solar Energy Corp. (ISEC) had constructive knowledge that sales to JA Solar USA were destined for the U.S., so those sales should be included as U.S. sales in the antidumping duty rate calculated for ISEC in an administrative review on solar products from Taiwan, the Commerce Department said in March 2 remand results (JA Solar International v. United States, CIT # 21-00514).
The Court of International Trade on March 3 granted two plaintiff-intervenors' motion for a preliminary injunction stopping liquidation for their entries, rejecting government arguments that the injunction would have impermissibly expanded the issues in the case. Citing past CIT judgments, Judge Mark Barnett held that the enlargement concept is only reserved for cases where an intervenor adds new legal claims to those already before the court.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: