Court of International Trade activity

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 17 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Japan. Mandatory respondent Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. and its importer, Optima Steel International, brought the case to challenge Commerce's liquidation instructions, which included the wrong name for Tokyo Steel, resulting in an improper liquidation since the company had its own rate in the review. Commerce requested the remand to fix the error.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 17 sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from China, covering entries in 2017-2018. Judge Richard Eaton said that, while Commerce could get a more accurate "all-others rate" by tapping more than two mandatory respondents, its decision to only have two and only use one of their rates when establishing the all-others rate was not illegal. The judge also held that Commerce's valuation of the mandatory respondents' live freshwater crawfish factors of production under EU tariff subheading 0306.30.10, providing for live, fresh or chilled freshwater crawfish, is backed by substantial evidence.

Monica Triana, a trial lawyer at the Department of Justice, has joined 15 cases at the Court of International Trade, according to a notice of appearance. All 15 cases are customs battles brought by Trimil S.A., an apparel importer, and concern the question of whether the entries should be appraised at the prices paid with royalties included. Triana joined DOJ in 2014, holding her position as a trial attorney since that time.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that two entries of appearance for Department of Justice attorney Robert Kiepura are not in compliance with court rules, the Federal Circuit said in two Dec. 15 notices. The entry documents were filed after the cases had been assigned to a merits panel, so in order for them to be properly added to the cases, Kiepura must first file a motion for leave to appear, the appellate court said. One case is appealing a July 2020 Court of International Trade decision that upheld the Commerce Department's termination of an old suspension agreement on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (Confederacion de Asociaciones v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2232). The other is challenging a September 2020 decision dismissing a challenge to the final antidumping duty determination on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2265).

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made a splash when it said that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping review respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value (see 2112100039). This opinion surfaced in two Court of International Trade cases also contesting Commerce's PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test via a pair of supplemental authority notices (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consl. #20-03868) (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

Mediation at the Court of International Trade in six consolidated cases over Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denials failed to produce a settlement, the court said in a Dec. 14 report. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries (Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00027).

In its comments on the Commerce Department's remand results, antidumping review petitioner Nucor Tubular grappled with a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion rejecting particular market situation adjustments for the sales-below-cost test. Arguing that since this decision is not yet binding as the mandate has not been issued, the Court of International Trade can still consider Nucor's position and rule in favor of the PMS adjustment (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT #20-00026).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade suspended the liquidation of Adisseo Espana's and Adisseo USA's methionine imports in a Dec. 14 statutory injunction order until litigation is completed over an injury determination on the imports. Adisseo launched its challenge in October to contest the International Trade Commission's finding that methionine imports from Spain and Japan injured the domestic methionine industry (see 2111150039). The Spanish company argued that the ITC spurned the commission's own traditional quarterly price comparisons in favor of "less reliable, anecdotal evidence." The statutory injunction motion, though, was filed upon consent of the Justice Department, and would enjoin methionine imports brought in between March 4, 2021, and Aug. 4, 2022 (Adisseo Espana S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00562).