The Court of International Trade granted a stay in an antidumping duty case brought by Interpipe Ukraine until the question over the legality of reducing the U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid is sorted out. In particular, Interpipe Ukraine's case is stayed until an action brought by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret is fully decided at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, since that case also concerns the question of Section 232 reductions (see 2106170026). CIT has held that the Commerce Department can reduce a respondent's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid in an AD case (Interpipe Ukraine LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00530).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted antidumping duty petitioner Welspun Tubular's bid for an extension of time to request a full-court rehearing of a key decision. The petitioner now has until Feb. 8 to ask the full Federal Circuit to reconsider a decision which found that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an AD respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test for the purposes of calculating normal value (see 2112100039). Petitions for en banc rehearings were originally due Jan. 9. Welspun won the extension after characterizing the appeal as one that is "critically important" to the petitioner and many other domestic producers of goods subject to ADD orders (see 2112290027) (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

The Department of Justice mischaracterized plaintiff Jeld-Wen's position in its challenge to an International Trade Commission injury determination to support a "baseless exhaustion argument" and cover up the ITC's "erroneous and inconsistent like product analyses," Jeld-Wen said in a Dec. 23 reply brief. Instead, Jeld-Wen argued, it had exhausted all administrative remedies over its like product challenge and its claims over the deficiencies in the ITC's like product analyses are backed by substantial evidence (Jeld-Wen, Inc.v. U.S., CIT #21-00114).

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

The Commerce Department's actions in calculating the all-others rate in an antidumping investigation were "patently unreasonable," plywood importers argued in Dec. 29 comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting their arguments to the Court of International Trade, the importers, led by Taraca Pacific, went after Commerce's method for finding the all-others rate when the agency itself recognized that the petition separate rate application rates the all-others rate was based on was only "to some extent" representative of the separate rate plaintiffs' dumping margin (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #18-00002).

The Commerce Department was wrong to deny antidumping duty review respondent Noksel's claimed duty drawback adjustment due to the fact that its inward processing certificate (IPC) wasn't closed, plaintiff Noksel Celik Borun Sanayi told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 23 brief. Noksel argued that it properly demonstrated that it qualifies for the full duty drawback adjustment since all imports and exports under the IPC have been completed and it is no longer permitted by the Turkish government to add import or export information (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00140).

The Court of International Trade stayed proceedings in a countervailing duty case brought by PAO TMK, a member of the TMK group companies, in a Dec. 29 order. The case concerns the CVD investigation into seamless pipe from Russia, in which the Commerce Department found that TMK received countervailable subsidies through the provision of natural gas and through loans from Russian state-owned banks. Following a consent motion to stay, the trade court stayed the action until 75 days after the final ruling in the case and all subsequent remands (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT #21-00531).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found two filings in separate cases to not be in compliance with court rules. In a case appealed by M S International over whether the Commerce Department has the right to define "producers" when determining if there's enough industry support to launch antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (see 2110080035), the Federal Circuit found the appellant's opening brief to not be in compliance. The brief had redacted confidential information in its addendum, but MSI didn't submit a confidential version of the brief as well. In the second case -- an appeal over whether Commerce can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2111230088), the Federal Circuit said that the paper copies submitted by the appellees of their notice regarding conflicts with oral argument aren't in compliance since they are improperly bound. The court doesn't accept paper copies in loose leaf binders, the notice said (Dong-A Steel Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2153) (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1077).

The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases contesting the Commerce Department's final results in the seventh administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to a Dec. 29 order. The two cases were brought by Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co. and Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Both cases challenge Commerce's use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a position that has been ruled against by the trade court (see 2110200049). The order came following a joint status report that said that all parties agree that the two cases should be consolidated under the one brought by Wuxi Tianran. The order accompanying the joint status report partially lays out the briefing schedule, requiring motions for judgment to be filed by March 9, 2022 (Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00538).

The Court of International Trade reassigned five customs cases brought by Continental Automotive Systems from Judge Timothy Stanceu to Judge Jane Restani, in a Dec. 28 order signed by Judge Mark Barnett. Originally filed in 2017 and 2018, the cases concern the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of Continental's probe element of nitric oxide sensors -- a mass-produced element of NOx sensors, designed for use in consumer passenger vehicles and trucks. Four of the five were placed under a test case. The Department of Justice filed its cross motion for summary judgment Dec. 22 (Continental Automotive Systems v. U.S., CIT #18-00026). The order didn't give a reason for the reassignment.