The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 remanded the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea in a confidential decision. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Dec. 16 to review the confidential information in the decision. The central issue in the case is the Commerce Department's finding of de facto specificity regarding the South Korean government's alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (see 2408130046). Parties in the case also contest Commerce's refusal to accept the 2021 cost information from the state electricity company, KEPCO, as being untimely filed (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00211).

The United Steelworkers labor union again (see 2409050044) said Dec. 10 that an exporter’s temporary-use spare tires should have been covered by an antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, in a motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00165).

Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology on Dec. 9 filed a rebuke of its designation as a Chinese military company, urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to reverse the decision due to a host of alleged evidentiary and procedural errors. Hesai said the Pentagon, which recently relisted the company, "still cannot find a single connection to the Chinese military or defense industrial base" (Hesai Technology Co. v. U.S., D.D.C. # 24-01381).

The U.S. on Dec. 9 sought default judgment at the Court of International Trade against importer Rago Tires in its customs penalty suit against the company for failing to pay antidumping and countervailing duties on truck and bus tires from China. The government brought the suit in February, alleging that Rago was grossly negligent in avoiding the AD/CVD (see 2402210061). The U.S. said it served the company's "principal and registered agent" a copy of the summons and complaint but has received no response. As a result, since the deadline to respond has lapsed, the government requested default judgment of $56,435.48 for the gross negligence claim (United States v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).

The U.S. defended the Commerce Department’s controversial enforcement of strict deadlines in another case Dec. 5, saying that the missed Dec. 26, 2022, deadline had been “clearly stated” by Commerce and acknowledged by the exporter (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).

In a Dec. 3 motion for judgment before the Court of International Trade, domestic producer Edsal Manufacturing again (see 2407120060) said that the Commerce Department should have used the more comparable surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelves from Thailand (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).

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

Surety firm American Alternative Insurance Corp. filed a cross-claim in a customs penalty suit brought by the U.S. against importer Repwire, its manager Jose Pigna and the surety. On Dec. 9, American Alternative Insurance told the Court of International Trade that Repwire and Pigna should be compelled to pay the over $13 million penalty and that the company and its manager "are obligated to indemnify" the insurance company for the amount of duties and fees being demanded (United States v. Repwire, CIT # 24-00173).

Importer Fine Emeralds will get refunds for duties paid on its rough, unworked emerald stones, the company announced in a stipulated judgment filed on Dec. 9 at the Court of International Trade. While the emeralds were assessed 10.5% duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7103.10.40, the government agreed to classify the products under subheading 7103.10.20, free of duty. Fine Emeralds' preferred subheading covers uncorked precious stones (Fine Emeralds v. U.S., CIT # 20-03928).

Chinese-origin countertop importer Superior Commercial Solutions argued Dec. 6 it hadn’t waived its challenge to the CBP regulation that allows it to initiate Enforce and Protect Act investigations based on a petition’s “date of receipt,” which is determined by the agency (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).