The Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 largely dismissed importer Prysmian Cables and Systems USA's suit challenging the Commerce Department's denial of its Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. Judge Stephen Vaden said the company's claims that Commerce failed to act since it didn't perform three required actions for each denial fall short, since the agency didn't fail to act. A denial isn't an "action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed: It is a decision," the court said. The court also dismissed most of Prysmian's challenges to the denials as being arbitrary and capricious, finding them to have been brought beyond the applicable two-year statute of limitations for challenging Section 232 exclusion request denials.
Regulatory attorney Brett Shumate left his position as partner at Jones Day on Jan. 17, the firm said in a notice to the Court of International Trade. Shumate had appeared as counsel for various companies in the massive Section 301 litigation before the trade court. Shumate joined Jones Day as a partner in 2019 after serving as the deputy assistant attorney general for the federal programs branch in DOJ's civil division.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The United States and plywood importer Richmond International Forest Products settled their 2021 case in the Court of International Trade Jan. 16. The parties agreed in a motion for stipulated judgment that the exporter’s entries of Chinese-origin plywood were subject to antidumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties. Its Cambodia-origin plywood, however, was not subject to any of the three (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #s 21-00063, -00318, -00319).
A group of importers, led by Tenaris Bay City Inc., will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's finding that it had sufficient U.S. industry support to launch the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia. After previously remanding the issue, the trade court said the agency adequately addressed contrary evidence (see 2412110010). On remand, Commerce said it appropriately used industry source data and that finishing operations weren't double counted (Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00343).
Vehicle side bar importer Keystone Automotive Operations’ classification dispute shouldn’t be granted reconsideration after a Court of International Trade ruling went against it (see 2410070030), the U.S. said Jan. 15 (Keystone Automotive Operations v. United States, CIT # 21-00215).
Importer AM Stone & Cabinets filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade, arguing that its products were unlawfully found to have been made in China based on adverse facts available, despite the company's full cooperation and a lack of evidence showing that its products were made in China (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT #s 24-00241, -00243).
Plaintiff-intervenor Florida Power and Light supported Vietnamese solar cell exporter Trina Solar before the Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 (see 2407150058). The two parties are arguing that the Commerce Department wrongly reached a circumvention finding regarding all of Vietnam’s solar cell exporters using only the records of a mandatory respondent (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00228).
Leaning on Loper Bright, Chinese solar cell exporter Yingli Energy pushed back against the Commerce Department’s usual presumption that exporters in nonmarket economies are under governmental control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 17 upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to not countervail three debt-to-equity infusions to exporter KG Dongbu Steel Co. in the 2019 countervailing duty review on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the evidence doesn't directly support a finding that the SouthKorean government pressured non-governmental institutions to take part in debt restructuring.