Counsel for steel importer California Steel Industries requested a status conference regarding a pending motion from the Commerce Department for voluntary remand in a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion case. Since the last brief in the proceeding was filed over a year ago, on June 9, 2022, California Steel called for the conference regarding the "next steps to resolve" the company's claims while being "mindful of [Judge M. Miller Baker's] busy schedule" (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 11 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request in a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. Commerce asked for the remand so it could make exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. a mandatory respondent in the review to bring the proceeding into compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in YC Rubber Co. v. U.S. (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. filed its third motion for an extension of time to file its reply brief in a suit on how to value cookware imports from Meyer Corp. Submitting the consent motion at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, DOJ lawyers said their heavy workload warranted the extension of time, which would make the brief due on Aug. 31 instead of Aug. 17. The three extensions together amount to 74 days from the brief's initial due date (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1570).

The government filed for an unopposed remand at the Court of International Trade of a suit on the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan. The U.S. said that if the remand is granted, the Commerce Department intends "to treat Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. as a mandatory respondent in its administrative review." Counsel for plaintiff Optima Steel consented to the motion, while counsel for petitioner Nucor Corp. took no position on the motion (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).

The Commerce Department's continued use of the Cohen's d test on remand in an antidumping duty case included data that didn't meet the test's statistical criteria, exporter SeAH Steel said in its Aug. 9 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Commerce cherry-picked data samples out of context to support its arguments and then failed to provide an explanation of how the department's use of the d test showed a pattern of SeAH’s U.S. prices that differed significantly among purchasers, regions or periods, SeAH said. SeAH asked the court to again remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration, especially regarding the limitations on the "reasonable use of Cohen’s d test" (Nexteel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00083).

The Commerce Department abused its discretion when it rejected Mexican exporter Simec's extension request and refused to accept a late submission during the 2019-20 antidumping duty administrative review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico, exporter Acerero said in its Aug. 9 reply motion at the Court of International Trade. The motion came in response to a filing from the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC), which asked the court to uphold Commerce's use of adverse facts available in calculating Simec's AD rate of 66.7% and the all-others rate assigned to exporter Sidertul and Acerero at 33.35% (see 2307110019) (Grupo Acerero v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 10 order stayed a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions for 60 days so the parties can conclude "a process of coordinating how" Commerce's decision on remand to grant 45 of the exclusions "should be effectuated." The agency changed course last year, granting the exclusions for importer Mirror Metals after finding that the relevant steel article could not be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (see 2204190016) (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 21-00144).

Purchasers of tuna from American Tuna urged the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to move for class certification in their suit that claims that American Tuna and World Wise Foods, its corporate parent, "deceived consumers" by creating the idea that its tuna is caught in U.S. waters. The buyers, led by Jeffrey Craig, said that a "significant portion" of American Tuna's brand tuna, which is branded as "100% American Made," is not caught in the U.S. (Jeffrey Craig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Tuna, S.D. Calif. # 3:22-00473).

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that importer Cabinets to Go didn't demonstrate that Chinese manufacturer Haiyan's failure to certify its products' country of origin violated any material term of an agreement between the two companies (Cabinets to Go v. Qingdao Haiyan Real Estate Group Co., M.D. Tenn. # 3:21-00711).