Plaintiffs in an antidumping case 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 Court of International Trade ruled in a June 14 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the AD petitioner, Ellwood City Forge Co., had "multiple opportunities" to counter the verification methodology, but failed to do so administratively.

The Commerce Department properly found that electricity was not provided below cost in South Korea in a countervailing duty investigation, the Court of International Trade said in a June 13 opinion. Following a remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that both of the remanded issues -- Commerce's reliance on the preferential-rate standard and its failure to address the Korean Power Exchange's (KPX's) impact on the South Korean electricity market as rendering cost-recovery analysis -- now comply with the appellate court's ruling.

President Donald Trump's move to expand the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products was part of the president's original "plan of action," thus making the expansion legal, the U.S. argued in a June 10 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Centering the reply on a key Federal Circuit opinion, Transpacific Steel v. U.S., which said the president can carry out certain Section 232 tariff action beyond procedural deadlines, DOJ told the appellate court that the derivatives expansion sought to carry out the president's original goal of reaching an 80% domestic capacity utilization rate for steel and aluminum.

The Commerce Department appropriately found that an Australian exporter did not reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and thus rightly decided not to deduct the amount of antidumping duties paid from the exporter's U.S. price in an AD case, the Court of International Trade said. In a a May 31 opinion that was made public June 10, Judge Richard Eaton said that the sale between exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) and the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser."

Importer Royal Brush Manufacturing failed to show that the Court of International Trade wrongly held that CBP did not violate the company's due process rights in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, the U.S. argued in a June 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In its opening brief, Royal Brush failed to cite "any legal authority" to back its theory that the trade court erred in shielding the business confidential information (BCI) from disclosure, DOJ said (Royal Brush Manufacturing Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 10 oral argument probed an antidumping petitioner's position that a supposed "methodological error" committed by a respondent in the reporting of its home market sales justified the use of total adverse facts available. Hitachi Energy USA, formerly known as ABB Enterprise, argued that errors committed in reporting the gross unit price for one home market sale justified tossing out the entire U.S. and home market sales database. Judges Pauline Newman, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark asked counsel for Hitachi and respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems questions over this position (Hyundai Electric v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2312).

The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion denied Indian exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited's (GFL's) bid for injunctive relief against liquidation and paying cash deposits from a countervailing duty investigation. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that the plaintiff failed to show that it would likely face harm without the preliminary injunction since the company failed to show that future refunds of excess cash deposits would be an "inadequate remedy." As for the injunction on liquidation, the court said that there's no draft order in "satisfactory form" that could allow the court to issue the standard injunction against liquidation. However, Stanceu gave the plaintiff 30 days to renew the injunction bid.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 9 opinion dismissed a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The plaintiffs, led by USP Holdings, argued that the Commerce Department report preceding presidential action violated the law since it failed to outline an imminent threat to the domestic industry as required by the statute and was unsupported by substantial evidence. A three-judge panel at the court ruled against these arguments, holding that there is no "imminence requirement" in the statute and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute."

The Court of International Trade in a June 1 opinion made public June 9 dismissed a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann and importer Gulf Coast Express Pipeline. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision.

The Commerce Department "lawfully and reasonably" found that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) -- the U.S. affiliate for BlueScope Steel -- for antidumping duties on the relevant imports, the U.S. argued in a June 7 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Contrary to plaintiff U.S. Steel's contention, Commerce properly concluded that AIS's pricing arrangement wasn't evidence of reimbursement for the duties because the agency no longer deducts from U.S. price any indirect reimbursement of antidumping duties, the brief said (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #21-00528).