Court of International Trade

The Commerce Department erred in finding that respondent Habich and its U.S. sales agent aren't affiliated, as well as in its calculations of Habich's normal value based on its third-country sales to Mexico, petitioner Lumimove, doing business as WPC Technologies, argued. Filing a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 5, WPC said Commerce's failure to further investigate the alleged affiliation between Habich and its U.S. sales agent amounted to a "dereliction of duty" (Lumimove, Inc., d/b/a WPC Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00105).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 remanded the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea in a confidential decision. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Dec. 16 to review the confidential information in the decision. The central issue in the case is the Commerce Department's finding of de facto specificity regarding the South Korean government's alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (see 2408130046). Parties in the case also contest Commerce's refusal to accept the 2021 cost information from the state electricity company, KEPCO, as being untimely filed (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00211).

The Commerce Department has the inherent authority to set procedural requirements in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings, making its revocation of certain AD orders lawful given that no interested domestic party filed a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews on the orders, the agency said. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 11, Commerce said the Court of International Trade's rejection of its action usurped the department's clear authority to fix its own procedures (Archroma U.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded to the Court of International Trade for the second time a case on Meyer Corp.'s use of first sale. The ruling, issued Dec. 13, orders the CIT to once again consider whether CBP was wrong to reject the first-sale price submitted to the agency by Meyer, based on the price paid by distributors in Macau to a Thai manufacturer and by distributors in Hong Kong to a Chinese manufacturer. The manufacturers, distributors and importers share the same parent company -- Meyer International Holdings, Ltd.

The United Steelworkers labor union again (see 2409050044) said Dec. 10 that an exporter’s temporary-use spare tires should have been covered by an antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, in a motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00165).

The U.S. defended its motion to dismiss importer Retractable Technologies' suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 duty hike on needles and syringes, claiming that the Court of International Trade either doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Retractable's claims or that the company failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 remanded CBP's finding that importer Fedmet Resources Corp. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China. Judge M. Miller Baker held that the Commerce Department, in a scope referral, erred in relying on its test finding goods to be covered by the orders if they are at least 5% made with alumina, since a court previously found the orders to not cover magnesia carbon bricks made with any added alumina. Baker said it's unclear if Commerce would have reached the same conclusion if it used the "benchmark of any added alumina."

The Commerce Department adequately explained its finding that it had sufficient industry support to launch the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 10. After previously remanding the issue, Judge Claire Kelly held that the agency sufficiently addressed evidence contrary to its conclusion.

The U.S. on Dec. 9 sought default judgment at the Court of International Trade against importer Rago Tires in its customs penalty suit against the company for failing to pay antidumping and countervailing duties on truck and bus tires from China. The government brought the suit in February, alleging that Rago was grossly negligent in avoiding the AD/CVD (see 2402210061). The U.S. said it served the company's "principal and registered agent" a copy of the summons and complaint but has received no response. As a result, since the deadline to respond has lapsed, the government requested default judgment of $56,435.48 for the gross negligence claim (United States v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).

In a Dec. 3 motion for judgment before the Court of International Trade, domestic producer Edsal Manufacturing again (see 2407120060) said that the Commerce Department should have used the more comparable surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelves from Thailand (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).