The Pacer court access system will undergo maintenance 6:55 a.m. to 6 p.m. EST Dec. 11, the Court of International Trade announced. "Users may experience intermittent issues when logging onto CM/ECF and when making payments through Pay.gov.," the court said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's remand redetermination concerning an antidumping duty review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea still suffers from "legal and factual flaws" despite the correct conclusion that no particular market situation existed that distorted the costs of production, Nexteel said in its Dec. 2 comments to the Court of International Trade. Nexteel told the court that, due to what it sees as the correct conclusion, CIT should sustain the remand redetermination but should force Commerce to reconsider the PMS issue should it come up before the court in the future (Nexteel and Seah Steel v. U.S. and U.S. Steel CIT # 18-00083).
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 6 upheld the Commerce Department's finding of no particular market situation for hot-rolled coil steel in an antidumping duty review on welded line pipe from South Korea. Judge Claire Kelly also upheld Commerce's decision to recalculate respondent Nexteel's costs without making a non-prime product adjustment and revise the non-examined companies' rate. However, the judge again remanded the agency's further explanation of its classification of Nexteel's suspended production line costs.
DOJ briefs in the massive Section 301 litigation don't demonstrate that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative considered "major objections contemporaneously with its decisions" to impose the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, the plaintiffs argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While USTR relies on presidential direction as the post hoc justification of its decisions, the court already ruled that out as a means of satisfying the Administrative Procedure Act, the brief said. To now satisfy the APA, the U.S. may take new action, but the lists 3 and 4A tariffs may not stay in place based on "conclusory and post hoc rationales," the plaintiffs said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly granted antidumping duty respondents a constructed export price offset in an AD review, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While AD petitioner Wheatland Tube "is correct" in arguing that the party seeking the offset has the burden of establishing the amount and nature of a particular adjustment, Commerce in this case reasonably found that "due to prior practice in this proceeding of accepting comparable information and analyses as sufficient to grant a CEP offset that Commerce should continue to grant a CEP offset in this review" (Wheatland Tube v. United States, CIT #22-00160).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty review challenge at the Court of International Trade, led by Grupo Simec, filed their opposition on Dec. 2 to the Commerce Department's move to add a memorandum to the administrative record. The plaintiffs said the move to add the memo -- a questionnaire deficiencies analysis for AD respondent Grupo Simec -- more than four months after the record closed was illegal because the document had never been "filed, published" or otherwise sent to the parties (Grupo Simec v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
Specialty medical foods designed for infants and toddlers should be classified as medicaments and as duty-free articles for the handicapped rather than foods, Nutricia North America again argued in a Dec. 2 response brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief follows a Oct. 28 motion for summary judgment by DOJ, wherein the government argued that "while therapeutic, Nutricia's products are still foods" (see 2210310054) (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT # 16-00008).