Jacob Kopnick

Target's attempt to fight off the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss a customs case at the Court of International Trade falls flat, DOJ argued in an Aug. 13 reply brief. Following practices codified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, CIT properly ordered the reliquidation of improperly liquidated ironing tables from China, DOJ said, backing the court's authority to do so (Target Corp. v. U.S., CIT #21-00162).

The Commerce Department does not need to "poll the industry" to find out if over half of the domestic industry supports an antidumping or countervailing duty petition, Judge Leo Gordon of the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 16 letter. Responding to consolidated plaintiff M S International's request for a remand directing Commerce to poll the industry or "collect additional information establishing whether there was industry support" for the contested AD/CVD petition, Gordon said this request stemmed from a misunderstanding of the law (Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00127).

Antidumping petitioner U.S. Steel Corporation and the two mandatory respondents in the contested antidumping duty review, SeAH Steel Co. and NEXTEEL Co., submitted their comments on the Commerce Department's remand results at the Court of International Trade. U.S. Steel spoke out against Commerce's flip on its finding of a particular market situation for South Korean steel while the respondents argued against the agency's reallocation of suspended product line and inventory valuation losses to general and administrative expenses and Commerce's decision to deduct a portion of SeAH's G&A expenses of a U.S. affiliate for further manufacturing costs (SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Mexican steel company Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and its U.S. affiliate moved to stay proceedings in its case at the Court of International Trade pending the appeal of a related matter at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 12 stay motion. Deacero wants action halted in its case until the Universal Steel Prod., Inc. et al. v. U.S. case has a decision at the Federal Circuit. While Deacero's case challenges the Commerce Department's findings in an antidumping duty review on the grounds that the agency's treatment of Section 232 duties paid by Deacero as ordinary customs duties and deduction from U.S. price are unsupported, the Universal Steel case has broader implications and would eliminate the need for Deacero to litigate the claims.

Ribbons exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Commerce Department said in Aug. 13 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's new determination, filed under respectful protest, led to the reconsideration of its use of adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review and subsequent exclusion of the AFA rate assigned to the EBCP for Yama. Commerce did, however, continue to find that the provision of synthetic yarn and caustic soda for "less than adequate remuneration" did meet the specificity requirement of the law and are deemed countervailable subsidies (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. U.S., CIT #19-00047).

The Commerce Department properly calculated antidumping duty review mandatory respondent LG Chem's cost of production (COP) when calculating constructed price, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 13 opinion. In a case over the antidumping duty investigation into acetone from South Korea, Judge M. Miller Baker held that Commerce's decision to spurn LG Chem's method for calculating the cost of the materials for making acetone in favor of the method used by the other mandatory respondent, Kumho P&B Chemical, was legal. This decision led to a higher antidumping rate for LG Chem in the investigation's final determination, sticking the exporter with a 25.05% rate. Baker also found that Commerce's rejection of certain of LG Chem's factual submissions was "harmless" and therefore permitted.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Husch Blackwell and one of its international trade partners, Jeffrey Neeley, committed legal malpractice when they went too far in a filing at the Court of International Trade subjecting imports of wood furniture to antidumping duties, Wego Chemical Group said in an Aug. 9 complaint at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A motion filed by Neeley mistakenly requesting an injunction be lifted on all entries subject to an antidumping duty period led to Wego needlessly paying over $325,000 in customs duties, the company said (Wego Chemical Group Inc. v. Husch Blackwell LLP et al., S.D.N.Y. #21-06689).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts was right to allow a new trial for Joseph Baptiste in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit said in an Aug. 9 opinion. Concurring with the district court that Baptiste's counsel was of such deficient performance to allow a retrial, a three-judge panel at the circuit court denied the U.S.'s appeal of the decision to run the trial back.