The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Ruling against the Commerce Department's use of a particular market situation adjustment when normal value is based on constructed value "could render the provisions Congress enacted to empower Commerce to address distortive" PMS adjustments "a dead letter in most" AD proceedings, petitioner Wheatland Tube argued in a Nov. 14 reply brief. Responding to the appellee Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s arguments for summary affirmance in the case, given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key opinion in Hyundai Steel v. U.S., Wheatland said that Commerce's PMS adjustment actually squares with Hyundai Steel (Saha Tahi Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).
Size-reduction machinery should be classified as duty-free machines for "crushing, grinding, or screening" rather than as "other electromechanical" machines, dutiable at 2.5%, importer Vecoplan said in a Nov. 14 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Vecoplan v. United States # 20-00126).
The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to modify antidumping duty respondent Suzano's cost of production to exclude certain derivative expenses from the financial expense ratio in Nov. 14 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. The combination of Suzano's audited financial statements and quarterly earnings (QE) releases together show that the derivative losses are not extraordinary but instead represent financing expenses related to Suzano's normal operations and thus should not be excluded from the ratio, Commerce said (Suzano S.A. v. United States, CIT #21-00069).
The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 judgment dismissed Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest case against its former counsel for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Concurrently filing a confidential opinion but a public order, Judge Gary Katzmann said the plaintiffs can refile under Section 1581(c). The case was originally filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Amsted Rail v. U.S., CIT #22-00307).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
US Steel Tells CIT About 'Developments' in CAFC Case Over Intervention in Section 232 Exclusion Case
U.S. Steel Corp., defendant-intervenor in a case over a denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, filed a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 14. The notice pointed to "developments" in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different challenge to Section 232 exclusion request denials. Those "developments" reference U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion for rehearing (see 2210250056), in which it argued that the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent. The defendant-intervenor alerted the trade court to these developments "as they may result in a change to Federal Circuit law regarding the rights of parties to intervene in actions before the Court" (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT #22-00243).
The Commerce Department admitted that it was "improper" to inflate a Mexican labor wage rate using Brazilian consumer price index (CPI) data in an antidumping duty investigation. Submitting its remand results on Nov. 14 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it reopened the record and added Mexican wage rate data. The agency also found on remand that exporter Guangzhou Ulix Industrial & Trading Co. met the burden for achieving separate rate status. The result of the remand is a zero percent dumping margin for respondents Ningbo Master International Trade Co., Guangzhou Jingye Machinery Co. and now Ulix (New American Keg v. United States, CIT #20-00008).
The Commerce Department stuck by its use of a simple average in the denominatory calculation of the Cohen's d coefficient -- a part of the test to root out "masked" dumping -- in Nov. 10 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Responding to an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit telling the agency to justify its departure from the academic literature about how to calculate the Cohen's d denominator, Commerce said that the literature actually supports the use of a simple average when sampling is not used (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, CIT Consol. #15-00213).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: