The U.S. and exporter Kaptan Demir told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department "is afforded substantial deference in interpreting" whether an input is "primarily dedicated" to the production of its downstream product for purposes of assigning subsidies given to the input supplier to the downstream product maker (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).

A steel importer whose Section 232 exclusion denials case has been winding through the Court of International Trade since 2021 said again June 10, in support of its remand comments (see 2404090067), that a competitor and domestic supplier provably hasn’t been able to provide enough steel for the importer’s needs since 2018 (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Exporter Oman Fasteners said a recent Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's filing deadlines supports its claim at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that one "inadvertent missed deadline 'without more'" doesn't support the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case. Oman Fasteners filed a notice of supplemental authority on June 10 calling the appellate court's attention to CIT's holding in Cambria Co. v. U.S. (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

After a remand order forced the Commerce Department to use Brazilian rather than Mexican labor cost data in calculating two Chinese exporters’ value, those exporters pushed back on the decision and the subsequent increase they saw in their own antidumping duties (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).

A tire importer opposed a motion to dismiss its case for lack of jurisdiction June 7, arguing that the Court of International Trade could preside because CBP had made a relevant protestable decision -- the decision to delay an admissibility determination (Inspired Ventures, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision granted the government's motion to dismiss a case from importer Greentech Energy Solutions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until June 17 to review the confidential decision so the court can publish the opinion. Greentech brought the suit under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, to contest the antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cell entries from Vietnam, claiming that the lack of dumping, subsidization or injury finding on Vietnamese solar cells made the duties illegal (see 2306130025). The U.S. said the court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP first to contest the duties (see 2312260052) (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Honeywell International on June 7 moved to unseal various pleadings in its customs case on the classification of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies. The importer moved to unseal its motion for summary judgment and five of seven exhibits accompanying the motion. Honeywell said the government consented to the motion (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).

Several Russian phosphate exporters filed the opening brief in their appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 7. They argued that the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding the Russian government’s provision of natural gas to them was incorrect, as their industry consumed only 4.7% of the total quantity of gas provided (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).