The Court of International Trade suspended four cases brought by Keystone Automotive Operations, placing them under a test case also brought by Keystone, in a Dec. 20 order. In its complaint, Keystone argued that CBP was incorrect to not extend a Section 301 tariff exclusion on side protective attachments for cars onto the importer's entries. Next up in the case is the discovery period, which is set to wrap up by Sept. 30, 2022 (Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00215). The four suspended cases are #21-00232, #21-00273, #21-00300 and #21-00349.

An extension of the scheduling order isn't needed in a countervailing duty case, brought by The Mosaic Company, after the Court of International Trade granted a litigant's motion to amend its complaint to add a new claim, the litigants told the court in a Dec. 17 letter. Consolidated plaintiff Industrial Group Phosphorite sought to amend its complaint in the action to add a single count challenging the Commerce Department's de facto specificity determination over the alleged natural gas subsidy program. In a Nov. 19 order, Judge Jane Restani granted the amendment despite opposition from other litigants (The Mosaic Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00117). The overarching case concerns Commerce's final results in the countervailing duty investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia. In the letter to Restani, though, Mosaic said that it conferred with the other parties, and they all agreed that no further amendment to the briefing schedule is necessary. "In light of that argument’s short length, and considering February 2022 deadlines Mosaic faces in other cases before the Court that would necessitate substantial extensions of the deadlines in this case if extensions were to be of any practical value, Mosaic believes amendment of the scheduling order is not warranted at this time," the letter said.

The Court of International Trade denied surety company American Home Assurance Co.'s bid to stay proceedings in a case in which the U.S. government is seeking to collect antidumping duties on canned mushrooms from China imported between 2000 and 2001. AHAC wanted proceedings stayed until a resolution is reached in another case that also deals with when the statute of limitations runs out on when the U.S. can collect payments on customs bonds. The DOJ opposed the stay bid, arguing that it would be harmed due to its ongoing discovery efforts (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175). DOJ is seeking to recover a customs bond for unpaid antidumping duties on the mushrooms from China, arguing that sureties are liable for paying the unpaid duties. CIT already ordered the parties to conduct discovery to find if AHAC suffered actual harm as a result of the government's "extensive delay" in issuing the bills for the duties after the entries were liquidated. In addition to opposing the stay motion on grounds that it would harm this current discovery period (see 2112100061), DOJ also said AHAC failed to show any hardship in being required to move forward with discovery.

The Commerce Department can reduce an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of their Section 232 duties paid, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 20 opinion. Commerce also doesn't have to notify the respondent that it intends to reduce the U.S. price by the amount of the Section 232 duties paid since notice and comment procedures don't apply to antidumping administrative procedures, Judge Jane Restani said.

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

Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company is appealing an October Court of International Trade opinion sustaining the Commerce Department's decision to drop a particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test. According to a Dec. 17 notice of appeal, Wheatland Tube will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case concerns the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. The trade court originally found that the statute does not permit a PMS adjustment to a respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test (see 2110190054). This interpretation was recently upheld by the Federal Circuit, which found that such an adjustment is only permitted when calculating constructed value (see 2112100039) (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00107).

The Commerce Department properly fixed an error in its liquidation instructions, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion sustaining the agency's remand results in an antidumping review. Fixing the name of one of the mandatory respondents that received its own rate in the review, Commerce's remand allowed the respondent -- Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. -- to receive the proper rate on its entries.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the notice of appearance for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's counsel in the company's appeal of an evasion finding to not be in compliance with the court's rules. Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, the attorney listed on Royal Brush's Entry of Appearance, had not registered for an electronic filer account with the Federal Circuit's filing system. The form must be resubmitted once Oleynik has an electronic filing account, the notice said (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

The Commerce Department dropped its particular market situation adjustment to two antidumping respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test in Dec. 15 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. If sustained, the result would cause the dumping rates for the respondents -- HiSteel Co. and Kukje Steel Co. -- to drop to 9.90% and 1.91%, respectively. The move by Commerce is one many in response to prior CIT opinions finding it illegal to make a PMS adjustment to the COP in a sales-below-cost test. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this principle in a precedential opinion (see 2112100039) (HiSteel Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00146).