Sales of goods warehoused in Canada to U.S. customers were not “domestic sales,” but sales “for exportation to the U.S. that should be appraised using transaction value, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed Nov. 19 at the Court of International Trade (Midwest-CBK, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 17-00154). The brief comes in reply to a filing from Midwest-CBK that argued CBP improperly valued the relevant entries because they were “domestic sales,” ordered by U.S. customers from Midwest-CBK’s U.S. sales force, and title transferred after delivery FOB in Buffalo (see 2111080068). DOJ said “domestic sales” is not a term found in the customs laws, and the sale meets all the requirements for a good sold for U.S. export.

Antidumping duty respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes and Pipes Ind. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade over the Commerce Department's denial of part of its responses in an AD administrative review. The company challenges Commerce's rejection of its questionnaire responses for being untimely filed for being nearly two hours late, despite COVID-19-related technical difficulties. The decision was especially egregious since Commerce granted itself lengthy extensions to meet deadlines in the review, the company said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00587).

Steel exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision that sustained the Commerce Department's finding that Al Ghurair circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel products from China via the United Arab Emirates. In a Nov. 19 notice of appeal, AGIS said that it will appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, AGIS unsuccessfully argued against Commerce's finding that AGIS's level of investment and production facilities in the UAE are minor and that the value of processing in the UAE represents only a small portion of the value of the merchandise shipped to the U.S. (see 2110050065) (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00142).

The Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision that sustained the International Trade Commission's finding that imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Chile and Mexico didn't harm the domestic industry. In a Nov. 19 notice of appeal, the subgroup said that it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The decision concerned the selection of data and the ITC's methodological choices for selecting pricing product data or bid data (see 2110050071) (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00090).

The Government of Argentina, along with LDC Argentina, will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision that found that the Commerce Department had sufficient evidence in its changed circumstances review to support its finding that the situation had not changed regarding countervailable subsidies for Argentina's biodiesel industry. In two notices of appeal, both plaintiffs said they will now take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, the court also upheld Commerce's decision to originally find changed circumstances but later switch back to a finding of no changed circumstances, leading to a higher CVD rate (see 2109210046) (Government of Argentina v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-00119).

The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a Court of International Trade case over steel exporter Mirror Metals' denied Section 232 exclusion requests, finding that it is appropriate to reconsider the exclusion denials. The case concerns 45 exclusion requests for flat-rolled stainless steel products that are supposedly used in large-scale architectural projects. The requests saw objections from three domestic manufacturers, leading to Commerce denying all 45 exclusion bids. The leading reason for the denials given by Commerce was the availability of the domestic capacity to make the products in question (Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00144).

The Department of Justice urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold a lower court ruling denying a group of domestic steel manufacturers the right to intervene in Section 232 exclusion denial cases, in a Nov. 17 brief, arguing that none of the producers has a legally protectable interest in the proceedings. DOJ said that the steel makers' economic interests are insufficient to warrant intervention in the cases since they are "indirect and contingent," seeing as the companies argue that their interest in the exclusions derives from "sales opportunities."

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

The Commerce Department's surrogate financial ratio calculation in an antidumping duty case, while better explained, is not the most accurate calculation and thus does not comply with the law or the Court of International Trade's order, plaintiff Ancientree Cabinet Co. argued in a Nov. 12 brief at CIT. Further, the particular methodology Commerce used also doesn't jibe with the agency's past methodology and reasoning in other AD reviews, the brief said (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-00114).

U.S. Steel Corporation should not be allowed to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial case because it has already been denied this right three other times and has no interest that can support intervention, Russian steelmaker NLMK argued in a Nov. 17 brief to the Court of International Trade. The critical flaw in U.S. Steel's intervention bid is that case is about the Commerce Department's action and not about U.S. Steel, NMLK said (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).