Proposed defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation will appeal a December 2021 Court of International Trade decision that denied the company the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge. U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Feb. 1 notice of appeal. In the decision, the trade court said that U.S. Steel cannot intervene since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome and that any harm the company would experience as a result of a Section 232 exclusion being granted would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products (see 2112060021) (NLMK Pennsylvania LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
Plaintiffs who challenged CBP's liquidation of their entries subject to a pending Enforce and Protect Act investigation are considering a challenge to the Commerce Department's final decision in a related scope ruling, they said in a Jan. 31 status report at the Court of International Trade. The scope inquiry found Vietnam Finewood and Far East American's hardwood plywood products are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duties on hardwood plywood from China (see 2201280051). Subsequently, and after the entries liquidated, CBP said that FEA and a third plaintiff, InterGlobal Forest, evaded the orders. The two now have 30 days to request a review of the EAPA determination. The government, joining the plaintiffs on the status report, says a resolution of this review is expected in June, and so the next status report should be set for a time after this review. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, said that the next status report should come in the next 30 days "after Finewood and FEA have fully considered their appeal against Commerce’s scope determination," the status reports said (Vietnam Finewood Company Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00155).
The Commerce Department reasonably found that antidumping respondents Aelous Tyre and Guizhou Tyre Co. were de facto controlled by the Chinese government, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 24 reply brief submitted at the Court of International Trade. Aeolus and GTC argued that in cases where the Chinese government is found to only own a minority of a company, Commerce cannot just rely on only one fact of the de facto control analysis. DOJ countered by saying that the plaintiffs mischaracterize Commerce' separate rate evaluations and that all factors were considered in establishing that the pair failed to rebut the presumption of government control (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00100).
The Court of International Trade sent an antidumping case back to the Commerce Department with instructions to perform verification of the respondent's information or respond to the arguments made by the plaintiffs, led by the Bonney Forge Corporation. Commerce originally opted not to conduct verification in India due to COVID-19, issuing an additional questionnaire instead. The plaintiffs asked the agency to conduct a virtual verification, to which Commerce didn't reply. Judge Stephen Vaden ordered Commerce to either conduct verification, as Commerce must reply to all arguments made in good faith, or explain why it can't. Vaden also said that if Commerce finds that verification remains impossible, it should explain why senior DOJ and Cabinet officials can travel to India, but it is not safe for bureaucrats with "statutory responsibilities to do the same, even if only virtually."
The Court of International Trade heard oral argument on Feb. 1 over whether lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 tariffs were properly imposed, marking one of the largest cases in the CIT's history. The hourslong affair saw the judges push back on arguments made by both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, with significant attention paid to the procedural elements of the president's decision to impose the retaliatory Section 301 tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. In all, the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves heard from the Department of Justice, counsel for the test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, and amici.
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case on the countervailing duty investigation of cold-rolled steel products from South Korea. In a decision penned on Jan. 21 but made public Feb. 1, the trade court upheld Commerce's decision to find that the provision of electricity to South Korean steel companies wasn't a countervailable benefit. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce sufficiently addressed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's reservations about the agency's initial ruling of no countervailable benefit, including the role of the Korean Power Exchange's impact on the electricity market.
OCP North America, the U.S. subsidiary of a Moroccan fertilizer exporter, penned a letter to U.S. farmers urging their support of the company's court case against the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco. The letter, sent through public relations firm Cogent Strategies, linked to a website also established by Cogent to serve as a platform for farmers to express their dissatisfaction with the order. The case the letter references is at the Court of International Trade and is challenging the International Trade Commission's injury determination that led to the imposition of the CVD order.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Porsche Motorsports North America will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a Dec. 30 Court of International Trade opinion that held that the company's auto parts and tools exported to Canada for use at auto races then re-imported don't qualify for duty-free treatment, it said in a Jan. 31 notice of appeal. Porsche sought duty-free treatment for its goods brought back into the U.S. under a goods returned tariff provision for "tools of the trade." While Porsche said that its goods were exported to support race teams, the trade court said that the auto parts were exported to generate sales to race teams rather than for a professional purpose, as required by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9801.00.8500 (see 2201030038) (Porsche Motorsports North America v. U.S., CIT #16-00182).
Antidumping duty respondent Goodluck India Limited filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's assessment of antidumping duties on its entries since they were not subject to the ADD order at the time, the company said. Goodluck participated in the antidumping duty investigation into cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India in which it was assigned a 33.7% cash deposit rate. The respondent then challenged this decision at CIT, which eventually overturned Commerce, affirming a final zero percent margin for Goodluck. The result was Commerce revoking the ADD order for Goodluck (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00024).