The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a July 19 opinion denied Hong Kong-based apparel company Changji Esquel Textile's (CJE) bid for a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, calling it "a Hail Mary pass." Judges Judith Rogers, Patricia Millett and Gregory Katsas held that CJE's claims that human rights violations are not proper grounds to be placed on the Entity List are not likely to succeed, upholding the district court's ruling saying the same thing.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 letter invited the U.S. and defendants-appellants Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Hyundai Corp. to file a response to a panel rehearing petition in an antidumping duty case. Originally brought by Hitachi Energy USA, the case concerns the administrative review of the AD order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly hit respondent HHI with adverse facts available over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said HHI has the right to supplement the record and Commerce cannot claim the company didn't act to the best of its ability in the review since it fully responded to Commerce's requests for further information (see 2205240028). Hitachi then filed for a rehearing, and the court invited the U.S., HHI and Hyundai Corp. to respond since they have yet to file a reply (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).
The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade flipped its positions on whether a particular market situation adjustment distorts the cost of production of a welded line pipe input and whether an adjustment should be made to antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s constructed value for sales of non-prime goods. The agency conformed to the trade court's ruling, finding a PMS doesn't exist and recalculating CVD without the non-prime goods adjustment, leaving respondents Nexteel and SeAH Steel Corp. with 1.12% and zero percent dumping rates, respectively. However, the agency stuck by its decision to reclassify Nexteel's reported losses over its suspended production lines (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).
The Commerce Department properly used the expected method to set the non-selected respondents rate in an antidumping duty case by weight-averaging two adverse facts available rates and a zero percent margin, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 15 opinion. Issuing the ruling following three remands, Judge Mark Barnett said that the plaintiffs, led by Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, did not present enough evidence to show that the mandatory respondents rates were not representative of the non-selected respondents' dumping margins.
The Commerce Department failed to show that it held a fair comparison between the constructed export price for three affiliated steel pipe producers and their home market price, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 15 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that Commerce did not discuss how a fair comparison was reached in light of evidence showing two levels of trade in the home market, nor did the agency analyze detracting evidence placed on the record by the plaintiffs, led by Universal Tube and Plastic Industries.
The Supreme Court's key ruling that called into question federal agencies' authority to regulate major sectors of the economy if not explicitly delegated by Congress could positively impact plaintiffs in the massive case against the Section 301 China tariffs, Christopher Kane, partner at Simon Gluck, said in a LinkedIn post. Kane said he thought that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its statutorily delegated authority by not engaging in the mandated deliberations before imposing the tariffs. Since the tariffs rise to the level of affecting a major segment of the U.S. economy, the West Virginia v. EPA decision would reverse the USTR's actions, Kane said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) should not be allowed to intervene in a case contesting CBP's finding that Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing an opposition brief at the Court of International Trade on July 13, with the support of Global Aluminum, Kingtom argued that AEFTC's motion is untimely, it failed to show a conditional right to intervene and the committee cannot intervene based on a shared claim or defense (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00198).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood Cit y Forge Company, filed for a reconsideration of a Court of International Trade opinion that found that they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies when challenging the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. The reconsideration bid argued that Commerce's remand results in a separate antidumping case revealed how futile raising the point administratively would have been, and that in light of these new facts, the court should reconsider its ruling (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00073).