The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's final negative injury determination in its antidumping and countervailing duty investigation of fabricated structural steel from Canada, China and Mexico, in a Sept. 22 confidential opinion. Judge Claire Kelly handed down the result, and plans to publish the public opinion on Sept. 30, she said in a letter to the litigants. The parties have until Sept. 29 to review information that's not already bracketed that should be bracketed and the already-bracketed information to make sure no confidential information is released to the public (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00090).

The International Trade Commission ignored that the domestic tire industry was profitable when it made its determination that passenger vehicle and light truck tires from South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam were harming the domestic industry, plaintiffs led by Sentury Tire (Thailand) Co. said in a Sept. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Sentury also argued that the commission failed to properly consider the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the domestic industry (Sentury Tire (Thailand) Co. Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00439).

Despite the Department of Justice's agreement to a limited injunction against liquidation through the end of the first administrative review of the relevant antidumping duty order, Ashley Furniture still seeks an open-ended injunction is needed to avoid irreparable harm due to a potentially years-long litigation that could run beyond the end of the first review, Ashley said in a Sept. 17 reply brief at the Court of International Trade.

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

The Commerce Department violated the law when it found that antidumping duty review respondent BlueScope Steel Pty did not reimburse its U.S. affiliate, BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA), for antidumping duties, U.S. Steel Corp. said in a Sept. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The agency failed to consider evidence provided by U.S. Steel that detracts from the agency's conclusion and failed to provide a reasoned explanation that reimbursement was not occurring, the steel giant said (United States Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00528).

The Commerce Department violated the law when it decided not to undertake a scope inquiry upon the request of Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., A-Timber Flooring Company Limited and Mullican Flooring Co., the three companies said in a Sept. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).

LG Electronics, and its U.S. affiliate, launched a case at the Court of International Trade against the International Trade Commission for freezing out certain members of its counsel from a safeguard extension proceeding on solar panels, in a Sept. 16 complaint. The ITC did not grant full access to proprietary information for all of LGE's legal team, from the firm Curtis Mallet-Prevost, due to the lawyers' roles in representing China in a dispute settlement case at the World Trade Organization (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520).

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

The Commerce Department's decision to grant byproduct offsets for an antidumping review respondent's fish oil and fish meal exports was backed by sufficient evidence, the Court of International Trade said in a Sept. 20 order. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves also ruled that Commerce's determination that the Global Trade Atlas' (GTA) data was the best available to calculate a surrogate value for the two byproducts was properly supported.

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's motion to lift a stay and voluntarily remand an antidumping duty case to give the agency a chance to consider new information showing inaccuracies in the mandatory respondent's reported sales prices, CIT said in a Sept. 20 order. The inaccuracies are based on potential fraud and Commerce has an interest in making sure the proceedings are free of fraud, the trade court said.