The Court of International Trade on Jan .13 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on a countervailing duty investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Commerce held that the Korean Electricity Corp. didn't provide electricity for less than adequate remuneration and that prices on the Korean Power Exchange are not a countervailable benefit. The CVD petitioner, Nucor, questioned the use of a preferential-rate standard in the case, but the trade court held that Commerce also considered whether KEPCO recouped its costs in finding that electricity was not sold for LTAR.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to apply Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions to their 19 entries, filed a notice of supplemental authority citing CBP rulings on classification of steel goods under Section 232 and Presidential Proclamation 9705 on the Section 232 tariffs to further support their arguments. The Department of Justice has moved to dismiss the case since the entries are unliquidated, precluding the Court of International Trade from having judicial review over the entries and the resulting tariff exclusion claims (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).
The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's voluntary bid to reconsider its decision to countervail the reduction for sewerage fees program in South Korea due to its "new understanding of Korean law," the trade court said in a Jan. 11 order. Commerce requested the do-over in a remand motion in which the plaintiff, Hyundai Steel, consented to the voluntary bid while the defendant-intervenor, Nucor Tubular, took no position on the matter (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that the Commerce Department can calculate a separate rate respondent's dumping margin by averaging an adverse facts available rate and a de minimis rate appeared in a similar case at the Court of International Trade. In a Jan. 11 notice of supplemental authority, defendant-intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Federal Circuit opinion "once again affirmed" that the law allows Commerce to include rates based on AFA in the calculation of a separate rate if all the mandatory respondents have a zero, de minimis or AFA rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).
Countervailing duty review respondent Uttam Galva Steels impeded the Commerce Department's countervailing duty administrative review by omitting information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry, defendant-appellees California Steel Industries and Steel Dynamics told the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 11 reply brief urging the appellate court to uphold the Court of International Trade's decision in the case (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).
Two “pertinent and significant” decisions at the Court of International Trade support the arguments of Section 301 test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its Trade Act of 1974 modification authority by imposing the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and that it violated protections in the Administrative Procedure Act against sloppy rulemakings, Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco said in a notice of supplemental authorities relevant to the Section 301 litigation. Both decisions were handed down after Akin Gump filed its final written brief in the Section 301 case on Nov. 15 (see 2111160010).
The Commerce Department incorrectly found Kumar Industries was affiliated with one of its home market buyers and one of its input suppliers in an antidumping duty review, and shouldn't have applied adverse facts available based on the lack of information provided by Kumar because the information wasn't requested, Kumar told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 complaint (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT #21-00622).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP failed to require that a company accused of evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties provide adequate public summaries of its confidential information, and the agency also failed to properly review the administrative record, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC) told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 reply to briefs submitted by the Justice Department and defendant-intervenors MSeafood Corp. and Minh Phu Seafood (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).