The Commerce Department has not shown good cause to delay filing its remand results in an antidumping case by 21 days, Turkish steel exporter and plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret argued in an Oct. 1 brief at the Court of International Trade. While sympathetic to the agency's rationale of a large case load necessitating the extra time, the excuse falls flat since these conditions are not unusual or extraordinary circumstances, Borusan argued. Commerce also failed to show that these issues were unanticipated, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00056).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case challenging the president's ability to adjust Section 232 tariffs beyond certain procedural time limits after denying the plaintiff-appellee, Transpacific Steel, a full court rehearing. The decision found that the president can hike Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day time frame for action set out in the statute, so long as that action is part of an underlying "plan of action" (see 2107130059). Transpacifc moved for a full court rehearing, arguing that the majority of the panel ruling on the case failed to impose the congressionally mandated limitations to the president's power laid out in Section 232. This petition was denied on Sept. 24 (see 2109270019) (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2157).

There will be no full court hearing for a case involving the Commerce Department's use of the "Cohen's d test" to discover targeted or masked dumping, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an Oct. 1 order. The case, appealed by SeAH Steel Corp., was remanded by the Federal Circuit in July after the appellate court found that Commerce may not be adhering to certain assumptions required to perform the statistical test (see 2107150032) (Stupp Corporation et al. v. U.S., et al., CAFC # 2020-1857).

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's request for a voluntary remand in a case over an error the agency made in its liquidation instructions following an antidumping review. Chief Judge Mark Barnett gave the court until Oct. 15 to submit the results of its redetermination (Optima Steel International, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

The Court of International Trade denied importer GLB Energy Corporation's preliminary injunction motion to revert its liquidated xanthan gum entries to unliquidated status, in a Sept. 30 order. Judge Gary Katzmann sided with the U.S.'s opposition to the injunction motion, finding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review entries that have already been liquidated. The obvious exception is if the case is a challenge to a denied CBP protest over a liquidated entry, which GLB has not filed. “Moreover, as the Government correctly observes, there is another avenue for GLB to preserve its rights: it can timely file an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) contesting CBP’s denial of its protest,” Katzmann said (All One God Faith, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

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

The Court of International Trade designated a tariff classification challenge on circuit card assemblies as a test case for four other lawsuits all brought by the same importer in a Sept. 30 order. Judge M. Miller Baker designated Triumph Engine Control System's case #19-00094 as the test case for the other cases -- CIT #19-00108, 19-00109, 19-00110 and 19-00130. Triumph believes the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for its assemblies is 9032, while CBP claims that 8538 is the proper subheading (see 2109170030) (Triumph Engine Control Systems, LLC v. United States, CIT #19-00094).

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination in the antidumping investigation of polyethylene terephtalate from Oman in a Sept. 30 confidential opinion. Judge Timothy Reif sent a letter to the litigants instructing them to look over the opinion with an eye out for confidential information, informing the court by Oct. 7 whether any further information should be redacted. A public opinion of the decision can be expected by Oct. 8. OCTAL Inc. brought the case, arguing that the ITC's conclusion of adverse volume and price effects was not backed by substantial evidence (OCTAL Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03698).

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

The Commerce Department's decision to include certain derivative losses from the financial expense component of an antidumping respondent's cost of production (COP) was properly supported, the AD petitioner Domtar Corporation argued in a Sept. 29 brief at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as the respondent itself referred to the derivative losses as being related to the company's financials rather than investment activity, it was reasonable for Commerce to treat them as such, the brief said (Suzano S.A. v. United States, CIT #21-00069).