Jacob Kopnick

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

The Commerce Department's decision to include certain derivative losses from the financial expense component of an antidumping respondent's cost of production (COP) was properly supported, the AD petitioner Domtar Corporation argued in a Sept. 29 brief at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as the respondent itself referred to the derivative losses as being related to the company's financials rather than investment activity, it was reasonable for Commerce to treat them as such, the brief said (Suzano S.A. v. United States, CIT #21-00069).

CBP erroneously classified importer Topcon Positioning System's rotating laser levels under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9031, the importer argued in a Sept. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By failing to analyze the principal use of the laser levels, CBP neglected to properly classify the products under HTS subheading 9015,the complaint said (Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00189).

Nucor Tubular Products launched a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade seeking higher dumping rates for the respondents in an antidumping review based on calculation errors committed by the Commerce Department (Nucor Tubular Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00543).

The Commerce Department continued to find that antidumping respondents Aeolus Tyre and Guizhou Tyre Co. were de facto controlled by the Chinese government, denying them separate rate status in Sept. 24 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade (Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00100).

The Justice Department moved for a voluntary remand in a duty evasion case after finding out that the parties to the investigation were not provided with certain documents in the investigation. DOJ argued that the remand should be granted since the parties should have the chance to make arguments to CBP based on this withheld information to inform the ultimate evasion decision (Norca Industrial Company, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00192).

A federal district court denied two Alaska shipping companies' bid for an expedited temporary restraining order against CBP penalties for seafood shipments found to be in violation of the Jones Act. In a Sept. 28 opinion, Judge Sharon Gleason of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska held that the plaintiffs, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, were unlikely to succeed in the case since the pair did not have a tariff filed to cover the transportation route in question.

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

The Commerce Department ditched its reliance on adverse facts available for respondent Hyundai Steel in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in a challenge to an antidumping review on cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. After giving Hyundai an opportunity to explain a discrepancy between two product codes, the agency accepted the explanation and thus dropped its adverse facts available finding. Commerce also rescinded its decision to apply the all-others rate to one of Hyundai's affiliated freight companies, dubbed "Company A" (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00099).

The Commerce Department decided to value a key solar cell input using Bulgarian imports rather than Thai imports after the Court of International Trade said the agency's use of the Thai surrogate data was improper, it told the court in Sept. 27 remand results (Solarworld Americas, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00134).