The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 9 opinion dismissed a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The plaintiffs, led by USP Holdings, argued that the Commerce Department report preceding presidential action violated the law since it failed to outline an imminent threat to the domestic industry as required by the statute and was unsupported by substantial evidence. A three-judge panel at the court ruled against these arguments, holding that there is no "imminence requirement" in the statute and that the threat determination is not reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard since the secretary's action "is only reviewable for compliance with the statute."
The Court of International Trade in a May 31 opinion made public June 10 sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. The U.S. Steel Corporation filed the case to argue that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) reimbursed the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas for the antidumping duties paid on the subject entries by decreasing the invoice price by the amount of the duties, and that Commerce should've deducted from the exporter's U.S. price because of it. Judge Richard Eaton said this was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser," and that no evidence was presented that would prove the importer was reimbursed.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department improperly relied on the Cohen's d statistical test when deciding to use an "average-to-transaction" as opposed to an "average-to-average" comparison of sales to calculate exporter HiSteel's dumping margin, HiSteel argued in a June 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce used the test without establishing the conditions needed to make the test work as pointed out in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, the exporter said (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).
The Commerce Department "lawfully and reasonably" found that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) -- the U.S. affiliate for BlueScope Steel -- for antidumping duties on the relevant imports, the U.S. argued in a June 7 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Contrary to plaintiff U.S. Steel's contention, Commerce properly concluded that AIS's pricing arrangement wasn't evidence of reimbursement for the duties because the agency no longer deducts from U.S. price any indirect reimbursement of antidumping duties, the brief said (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #21-00528).
The Court of International Trade, in three related opinions, rejected reconsideration bids from a series of domestic manufacturers and producers of a wide range of goods covered by antidumping duty orders for the court to vacate or modify certain claims as being time barred. The reconsideration motions concern whether certain claims seeking payouts of delinquency interest under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 were timely filed. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the plaintiffs "have not put forth a valid reason why the court should vacate or modify the decision."
The Court of International Trade in a June 1 opinion made public June 9 granted the U.S.' motion to dismiss a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann and importer Gulf Coast Express Pipeline. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision.
The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion denied Indian exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited's bid for injunctive relief against paying cash deposits from a countervailing duty investigation and liquidation. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that the plaintiff failed to show that it would likely face harm without the preliminary injunction since the company did not show that future refunds of excess cash deposits would be an "inadequate remedy." As for the injunction on liquidation, the court said that there's no draft order in "satisfactory form" which could allow the court to issue the standard injunction against liquidation. However, Stanceu gave the plaintiff 30 days to renew the injunction bid.
The Court of International Trade in a June 7 order granted the U.S.'s bid for a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case, halting proceedings until the Commerce Department issues its final determination in the relevant covered merchandise referral matter. The case concerns Fedmet Resources' challenge of a 2020 EAPA determination, in which CBP found that Fedmet had evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) bricks from China. On April 27, CBP requested a stay to seek a covered merchandise referral from Commerce because it says that it's unable to determine whether the bricks it tested are covered merchandise (see 2204270072) (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT #21-00248).
Attorneys for RH Peterson asked the Court of International Trade to set aside a dismissal entered by the court clerk on June 3, which cited "lack of prosecution" as a reason for dismissal following a missed filing deadline by the importer. RH Peterson's attorneys said that they believed the filing deadline to avoid the dismissal was at the end of June, according to a June 6 motion to reinstate the case (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).