The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a confidential decision on Dec. 2 on the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Dec. 9 to review the confidential information in the decision. Previously, the judge remanded part of Commerce's decision to initiate the investigation, holding that the agency hadn't proven that the petition had at least 50% support from the domestic industry (see 2403220033). Kelly was concerned that some U.S. producers that both make and finish OCTGs may have accidentally been counted twice. On remand, Commerce said it found no evidence of double-counting (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 referred importer California Steel Industries' suit on its denied requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions to court-annexed mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The action was previously referred to mediation, though the effort proved fruitless (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).

The U.S. and defendant-intervenors each replied Nov. 26 to importer CME Acquisition’s August motion for judgment (see 2408220024). They argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has put the burden on exporters to show that averaged adverse facts available rates for non-selected respondents via the expected method is unreasonable (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).

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

Exporter Chandan Steel Limited will appeal a decision from the Court of International Trade sustaining the 145.25% total adverse facts available rate set against the exporter in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on steel flanges from India (see 2312110043). The Commerce Department said Chandan repeatedly misreported its foreign sales information and the costs of production for those foreign sales. The court upheld the use of AFA to address these misrepresentations, noting that Chandan's responses also had additional deficiencies related to its reporting of gross unit price, quantity discounts, other discounts and duty refunds. The trade court then rejected Chandan Steel's motion for reconsideration of the decision (see 2410030013) (Chandan Steel Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00540).

Importer PowerTec Solutions filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 25 seeking refunds of Section 301 duties paid on its power supplies and cables (PowerTecSolutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).

The U.S. said Nov. 22 that a vehicle parts importer “misrepresented multiple primary sources” when it argued that, as a petitioner for antidumping and countervailing duty orders on chassis from China, it hadn’t intended Chinese-origin components used in chassis from another country be included (see 2403070060) (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

The Court of International Trade granted an unopposed motion for partial final judgment Nov. 26, sustaining the antidumping duty rate calculated for exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Judge Mark Barnett said the rate is "unchallenged and otherwise appears supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law" (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

Importers Struxtur and Evolutions Flooring will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. The trade court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to weight average zero percent and adverse facts available antidumping duty rates to set the AD rate for the non-individually examined respondents (see 2409180044). CIT previously remanded Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the zero and AFA rates, instructing the agency to use a weighted average of the rates. The result was a 31.63% AD rate for the separate rate companies. Importers Wego International Floors, Galleher Corp. and Galleher LLC already filed their notice of appeal in the case (see 2411120038) (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00144).

Supporting its own motion for judgment (see 2407190048) in a case regarding the oft-litigated countervailing duties on South Korea’s low-cost provision of off-peak electricity (see 2406200062), the Korean government said Nov. 26 the opposition’s cited cases were distinct from the current situation (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).