The Commerce Department "exceeded its legal authority" in an anti-circumvention case "by imposing a blanket origin finding" on aluminum wire and cable exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable when it barred the company from taking part in the agency's program for certifying that an exporter's inputs weren't of Chinese origin, Tanghenam argued in a Nov. 11 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).
International trade boutique firm Lighthill added two new attorneys, the firm announced on LinkedIn. Natalie Zink, former staff attorney at the Commerce Department, joined Lighthill to work on antidumping and countervailing duty matters and customs compliance issues. Zink was at Commerce from 2020 to 2022 and most recently worked at Schulz Trade Law as an associate attorney. In addition, former immigration attorney Pablo Aponte Rojas joined Lighthill, where he will center his practice on maritime law, customs and trade remedies. Aponte Rojas operated his own immigration law firm starting in 2023.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett stayed Oct. 31 a case brought by Aloha Pencil Company opposing the recission of an antidumping duty review on cased pencils from China. He said he wants a joint status report from Aloha and the government regarding whether the trade court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case (Aloha Pencil Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00102).
The Commerce Department unlawfully used "zeroing" in calculating respondent YDD Corporation's antidumping margin in the AD investigation on ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan, YDD argued in a Nov. 7 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The respondent said Commerce has a "long-established practice of not using zeroing," yet the agency "departed from this practice" when calculating the company's AD rate "without providing any explanation for this change in practice" (YDD Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00100).
Exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies on Nov. 7 said it would appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision dismissing the company's case against the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2509080047). The trade court said Pipe & Piling failed to notify the other interested parties of its lawsuit as required by the USMCA, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(3)(B), adding that this requirement is a jurisdictional one (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, Slip Op. 25-119, CIT # 24-00211).
In a reply to Korean steel exporter Hyundai, steel petitioner Nucor Corp. said Oct. 24 that the Commerce Department, again, was right to base its determination of the de facto specificity of South Korea’s discounted off-peak electricity prices on the fact that three unrelated industries received a large portion of the subsidy (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00190).
Exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret moved the Court of International Trade on Nov. 6 for a preliminary injunction in its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. The motion only noted it had the partial consent from the government, since DOJ can't consult with the Commerce Department on the motion until the federal government reopens. Kaptan filed its case last month to contest Commerce's selection of a benchmark to value a subsidized lease provided to Kaptan's affiliate, Nur Gemicilik, in the review (see 2510140030) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 25-00225).
The Commerce Department erred in backing off its use of the Cohen's d test to identify targeted dumping in the middle of an antidumping duty review and introducing a new "two-percent threshold," review respondent Tubos de Acero de Mexico (TAMSA) argued in a Nov. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. TAMSA said that while Commerce said it was backing off the d test due to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejecting the agency's use of the test, the agency didn't have to make a change, since CAFC's decision wasn't "final and conclusive" (Tubos de Acero de Mexico v. United States, CIT # 25-00221).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade: