The Commerce Department legally found that the Korean government didn't provide a countervailable benefit through its provision of electricity to respondents in the countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Oct. 23. Judges Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham said Commerce sufficiently carried out a less-than-adequate-remuneration (LTAR) analysis after its original preferential rate analysis fell short before the appellate court in 2019.
The EU General Court on Oct. 18 rejected two sanctions delisting applications from Belarusian automakers Minsk Automobile Plant and BelAZ. In separate applications, the companies said the European Council failed to notify them of the sanctions, failed in the wording of the companies' names in the sanctions listings and failed in assessing the facts surrounding their designations.
South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel Co. will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's finding the South Korean government's free provision of port usage rights at the Port of Incheon provided Hyundai with a countervailable benefit. According to the notice of appeal, Hyudai will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said the agency reasonably found it should conduct a revenue forgone analysis instead of a less than adequate remuneration analysis since Hyundai's non-payment of port usage fees involved a type of financial contribution via forgone revenue instead of the provision of services (see 2308220031) (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT # 21-00536).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 opinion granted exporter Midwest-CBK's motion to ditch its case on whether sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are sales for export to the U.S. or domestic sales. Following a prior CIT ruling finding that the company's imports are sales "for exportation to the United States" and that the goods were not deemed liquidated, the case shifted to how to value the goods.
The Commerce Department properly saddled countervailing duty respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. (GRT) with adverse facts available related to its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. While Commerce and the trade court have rejected the use of AFA for this program where a respondent can submit verifications that their U.S. buyers didn't use the program, Judge Mark Barnett sustained AFA here since GRT failed to raise its claims against the use of AFA administratively.
The International Trade Commission failed to give Russian exporter PAO TMK a chance to comment on issues in the International Trade Commission's negligibility analysis as part of the injury proceeding on seamless pipe from South Korea, Russia and Ukraine, the Court of International Trade ruled. In an Oct. 12 opinion made public Oct. 20, Judge M. Miller Baker said TMK should be able to submit comments on the commission's sole reliance on questionnaire data from one unnamed company, "Company A," on goods from Germany and another unnamed company, "Company B," on goods from Mexico.
The U.S. asked for 17 more days to file its reply brief in the lead case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in its analysis of "masked" dumping in antidumping duty proceedings. The brief is currently due on Oct. 20 and the extension request, the second of its kind for the U.S. following a prior 45-day extension, would see the brief due Nov. 6 if granted. Exporter and appellant SeAH Steel Corp. told the government it objects to the motion (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
The Supreme Court hasn't decided a case using its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council since 2016, prompting the question not of whether it should be overruled but whether the high court "should let lower courts and citizens in on the news," commercial fishing companies led by Loper Bright Enterprises argued. Filing a reply brief in a key case on Chevron, which grants deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, the fishing companies said the decision "has already proven itself unworkable, and its corrosive effects on our separation of powers have lingered long enough" (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, Sup. Ct. # 22-451).
Three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges -- Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto -- moved for assistance from the District Court for the District of Columbia in settling a dispute between the trio and their colleague, Judge Pauline Newman, over a mediation confidentiality agreement. While the motion, brought as part of Newman's case against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving as a judge, was silent on the nature of the dispute, the judges discussed ways the court could settle it (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).
The U.S. asked for an amended protective order in a case brought by Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. to challenge its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The request comes on the heels of Ninestar's request for the Court of International Trade to compel production of the confidential information used in the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's review of Ninestar (see 2310180025) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).