The Commerce Department has to reconsider two scope rulings that found that certain flanges are subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. In two decisions, the Court of International Trade said that Commerce either misinterpreted evidence or failed to consider all the relevant evidence when deciding that flanges from MCC Holdings, doing business as Crane Resistoflex, and Star Pipe Products are subject to the antidumping duty order.

The Commerce Department will reconsider its application of facts available in a countervailing duty review pursuant to its own voluntary remand request, the Court of International Trade ordered in an Aug. 27 decision. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the remand was warranted since it will allow Commerce the opportunity to "cure its own mistakes and reconsider the substantive issues," raised by plaintiff and respondent Hyundai Steel Company.

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

A lawsuit seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions should be dismissed because the subject entries are not liquidated, the Department of Justice said in an Aug. 26 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The suit, brought by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, is seeking the exclusions on 19 entries of steel pipe from Turkey and claims jurisdiction under Section 1581(a). However, a protestable decision needs to occur to claim this jurisdiction -- something the plaintiffs do not have, DOJ said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).

Consolidated plaintiff in an antidumping case Hyundai Steel in an Aug. 25 filing signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results (see 2106220064) dropping a cost-based particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test. The case comes from the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Following elimination of the PMS adjustment, Husteel, the other plaintiff in the case, received a 6.44% dumping rate, down from 10.91%, while Hyundai received a 4.82% rate, down from 8.14%. Hyundai said no parties submitted comments opposing the remand results (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00107).

The Commerce Department had more than half of the domestic industry's support when it considered an antidumping and countervailing duty petition, the Department of Justice said in an Aug. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to a brief from consolidated plaintiff M S International (MSI), DOJ said that none of the company's arguments excuses “its failure to proffer evidence on the record sufficient to upset Commerce's industry support determination” (Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00127).

Advanced Extrusion, Ex-Tech Plastics and Multi-Plastics Extrusions, defendant-intervenors in an antidumping case, opposed plaintiff OCTAL's motion to expand the word limit and ability to submit reply comments to the Commerce Department's remand results. The intervenors said in an Aug. 24 brief that OCTAL's comment schedule would “improperly extinguish” their opportunity to comment on the remand results, which could prejudice their rights on appeal (OCTAL, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).

Swiss computer peripheral and software company Logitech won its tariff classification challenge in the Court of International Trade, getting duty-free treatment for its webcams and ConferenceCams, per an Aug. 24 decision. Senior Judge Leo Gordon ruled that the webcams fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8517, as argued by Logitech, as opposed to heading 8525, dutiable at 2.1%, as suggested by the government. Finding that the products in dispute fall under both headings, Gordon said the duty-free heading describes the goods “with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty.”

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department's rejection of questionnaire responses in antidumping and a countervailing duty cases filed 21 and 87 minutes late was unreasonable and a "miscarriage of justice," Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi said in two Aug. 24 reply briefs. In particular, defendant-intervenors, led by Insteel Wire Products Company, wrongly speculated about Celik Halat's counsel's awareness of the time zone at his residence in Utah, leading to three entire days for which Celik Halat had to submit the questionnaire responses. Rather, the filing deficiencies stem from an emergency medical procedure and not a time zone mishap, Celik Halat said (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00045, #21-00050).