CIT Denies Stay in South Korean CVD Case, Says It Would Delay Just Resolution of the Case
The Court of International Trade denied plaintiff Nucor's motion for a stay in a countervailing duty case, finding that the steel producer's arguments were "not persuasive." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the stay in an Aug. 23 order, declaring a stay pending resolution of another action over the same countervailing duty review "would delay the just and speedy resolution of this litigation" (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The case contests the Commerce Department's final results in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea, in which Hyundai Steel and POSCO served as mandatory respondents. In the review, it was alleged that the respondents received a countervailable benefit from the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration. Nucor launched its case to argue that Commerce erred by finding that the provision of electricity below cost conferred a nonmeasurable benefit (see 2206070036).
Nucor then moved to stay the case pending the disposition of another case it brought. The U.S. opposed the move. Choe-Groves sided with the government, finding the considerations of judicial economy don't favor the stay because the decision in the other Nucor case isn't binding on the court in the present Nucor case.
"Further, an indefinite stay would harm Defendants and prejudice opposing parties. ... (noting that 'during the indefinite stay, the memories of agency personnel and other interested parties will fade')," the order said. "The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that any benefits occurring from an indefinite stay would outweigh the potential hardships or inequities."