Exporter Hyundai Steel and the South Korean government each pushed back again May 19 against the Commerce Department’s specificity finding, maintained after a remand, regarding the provision of off-peak electricity by the Korean government to Hyundai for less-than-adequate remuneration. The department completely failed to follow the trade court's remand order, they said (see 2504160043) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

Importer Seneca Foods told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the government is trying to support the Commerce Department's denial of Seneca's request for Section 232 tariff exclusions by "stretching" the deference shown under the arbitrary and capricious standard to "cover decisions devoid of any supporting evidence." Filing a reply brief on May 23, Seneca said it submitted enough evidence to show that the U.S. industry didn't have the capacity to fill its steel orders at the time the foreign purchase orders were made and at the time the exclusion requests were filed (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1310).

The Court of International Trade on May 27 entered default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng in a customs penalty case after previously denying the government's bid for default judgment. In its second attempt to secure default judgment, the U.S. further defended its claim that the merchandise at issue is valued at nearly $3.4 million (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

Petitioner Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group told the Court of International Trade on May 20 that it would be making arguments in its aluminum foil case on the basis of the recently decided solar cell cases (see 2505160045, 2505190059 and 2505190054) (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00013).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 23 extended a stay in an antidumping duty case after the Court of International Trade settled a related lawsuit. Judge Timothy Dyk noted that the parties told the court that, if no party files an appeal in the related case, the present case before CAFC will be withdrawn. As a result, Dyk extended the stay and said the parties have until seven days after June 16 to tell the court how they plan to proceed (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).

Steel wire importer Deacero filed a motion for judgment May 19 saying the Commerce Department’s circumvention finding regarding its prestressed concrete steel wire (PC) strand, made under Section 781(a), represents a dangerous precedent that would let Commerce impose duties on all intermediate steel products and “endanger investment” in U.S. manufacturing (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).

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

A trade group that requested antidumping and countervailing duties on glass wine bottles brought a 27-count complaint to the Court of International Trade on May 21. The petitioner challenged the International Trade Commission’s determination that bottle imports weren’t harming the domestic industry (U.S. Glass Producers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00076).

The U.S. filed a May 19 supplemental brief in a 2021 case involving dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand to address the case’s last “remaining contention” after the importer lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 23 denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in an antidumping duty scope case filed by importers Smith-Cooper International and Sigma. Judges Kimberly Moore, Haldane Mayer, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark denied the petition (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-1093, -1141).