The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 16 denied exporter Koehler Oberkirch's petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to have the appellate court review the Court of International Trade's decision that the government could effect service on the company via its U.S. counsel. Judges Timothy Dyk, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark said Koehler failed to meet the "demanding standard" for granting mandamus relief (In Re Koehler Oberkirch, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week heard oral argument on whether the Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available against exporter Tau-Ken Temir in a countervailing duty review due to the company's failure to meet filing deadlines. Judges Todd Hughes, Sharon Prost and Timothy Dyk sharply questioned counsel for both Tau-Ken Temir and the government regarding whether the exporter took best efforts to meet filing deadlines and whether the government acted reasonably in rejecting the submission that was filed two hours late (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).

The Commerce Department didn't fail to notify exporter Hyundai Steel Co. about deficiencies in its quantitative analysis in an antidumping review and also properly denied constructed export price adjustments to both Hyundai and exporter Husteel Co., the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 15.

The Commerce Department reasonably used exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi's invoice date as the date of sale in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 15. Judge Jane Restani also upheld Commerce's differences-in-merchandise adjustment, finding that the adjustment wasn't distoritive in the way that it controlled for inflation.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Nine different companies filed a total of 18 nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 13 contesting the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from China. All the cases contest a part of Commerce's final scope decision in the proceedings, which found that the agency had the "legal authority to include within the scope of investigation, and did in fact include, 'inputs' to imported merchandise, as opposed to the actual imported merchandise itself" (Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #s 24-00250, -252).

Indian aluminum sheet exporter Hindalco Industries brought a complaint Jan. 10 to the Court of International Trade, saying the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).

The Commerce Department engaged in a "fishing expedition" during the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco, seeking information on potential subsidies "without a scintilla of evidence" indicating that any countervailable benefits existed, exporter OCP argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 13, OCP argued that Commerce went beyond its statutory authority and "should never have investigated potential subsidies based on information provided by OCP" (OCP v. United States, CIT # 24-00227).

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on pentafluoroethane (R-125) -- a gas used in refrigerants -- from China in a decision made public Jan. 10.

The Commerce Department failed to justify its finding that a subsidy to exporter OCP from a program for relief from tax fines and penalties was de facto specific, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 8. Remanding the countervailing duty investigation on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco for a second time, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency's altered defense of its specificity finding was no less "absurd" than it was in the first go-round.