Ellwood City Forge Company is attempting to relitigate a case without offering anything new through its bid for reconsideration at the Court of International Trade, defendent-intervenor Metalcam said in a July 29 opposition brief (Ellwood City Forge Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00073).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 28 or July 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
U.S. Steel will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling that found the Commerce Department appropriately determined an Australian exporter didn't reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and was correct not to deduct the amount of antidumping duties paid from the exporter's U.S. price (see 2206100066). U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff said in a July 27 notice of appeal. The case concerns the administrative review of the AD duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. CIT Judge Richard Eaton said the sale between exporter BlueScope Steel and the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser" (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #20-03815).
Plaintiffs in two Enforce and Protect Act cases, led by Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio in both actions, backed off their opposition to the U.S.'s motions to suspend proceedings in light of CBP's decision to flip its evasion finding on importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply. In the Global Aluminum Distributor case, CBP said it no longer believes the importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through Kingtom (see 2206150047). In Kingtom's two cases, the U.S. requested a stay until the court sorts out the Global Aluminum case. These motions were met with opposition by the plaintiffs until CBP flipped its evasion finding in the Global Aluminum action, prompting the plaintiffs to leave the decision over the stay "to the sound discretion of the Court" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072, -00079).
The Commerce Department illegally used total adverse facts available on the grounds that antidumping respondent Kumar Industries failed to fully cooperate to the best of its ability, Kumar said in a July 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's position that Kumar failed to hand over all of the information regarding its affiliation status is incorrect since the respondent gave "extensive information" on its affiliation status with two unnamed companies "at every occasion in the form and manner requested by Commerce," the brief said (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00622).
Angela Ellard, a deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, called on WTO member governments to deposit instruments of acceptance with the multilateral trade organization to help the recently negotiated fishery subsidies agreement enter into force. Speaking at a virtual Washington International Trade Association event July 28, Ellard laid out the path ahead for the full adoption of the fisheries agreement while reflecting on steps the WTO looks to take on helping countries fully implement the obligations tied into the agreement. The DDG also spoke of a fund provided for in the agreement which will help less developed countries with the notification and transparency elements of the deal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 28 opinion held that CBP timely liquidated or reliquidated 10 entries of wooden bedroom furniture. The court ruled that the first unambiguous indication that an injunction against liquidation had ended came from liquidation instructions from the Commerce Department that were sent within the six months prior to liquidation, making the liquidation of the entries timely.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department had no legal grounds to find that Hyundai Steel Company received a countervailable benefit from the South Korean government's provision of port usage rights, Hyundai argued in a brief at the Court of International Trade. Commerce ignored its own standard over port usage rights that says that these rights can be countervailed only if the benefit were "excessive," the brief said. The port usage rights afforded to Hyundai were given as payment for a debt to Hyundai and thus not a countervailable benefit, Hyundai argued (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).