The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 16 denied exporter Koehler Oberkirch's petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to have the appellate court review the Court of International Trade's decision that the government could effect service on the company via its U.S. counsel. Judges Timothy Dyk, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark said Koehler failed to meet the "demanding standard" for granting mandamus relief (In Re Koehler Oberkirch, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department didn't fail to notify exporter Hyundai Steel Co. about deficiencies in its quantitative analysis in an antidumping review and also properly denied constructed export price adjustments to both Hyundai and exporter Husteel Co., the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 15.
The Court of International Trade in a pair of cases held that the Commerce Department permissibly found the full allotment of emissions credits under a Korean cap-and-trade program to be de jure specific. Judge M. Miller Baker sustained the 2019 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, finding that the criteria for the program's eligibility, which are international trade intensity and high production costs, are "neutral" and don't favor one enterprise or industry over another.
The Commerce Department reasonably used exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi's invoice date as the date of sale in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey, the Court of International Trade held on Jan. 15. Judge Jane Restani also upheld Commerce's differences-in-merchandise adjustment, finding that the adjustment wasn't distoritive in the way that it controlled for inflation.
Petitioner The Mosaic Company brought two separate complaints to the Court of International Trade Jan. 13 contesting parts of the Commerce Department’s second countervailing duty review on Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer, respectively (The Mosaic Company v. United States, CIT #s 24-00229, -230).
The Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available related to exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s alleged receipt of benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Ancientree argued in a Jan. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Ancientree said it demonstrated that neither it nor its U.S. customers used the EBCP (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).
Various exporters led by Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. challenged the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on aluminum foil from China at the Court of International Trade (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00231) (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to deny exporters Hyundai Steel Co. and Husteel Co.'s constructed export price offsets in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Judge Timothy Reif said that Commerce reasonably said a "per-unit analysis" was needed to properly assess whether the home market and CEP sales were made at a more advanced stage of distribution and that neither respondent submitted such an analysis. The judge also said Hyundai received adequate notice of any insufficiencies in its submissions.
Nine different companies filed a total of 18 nearly identical complaints at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 13 contesting the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from China. All the cases contest a part of Commerce's final scope decision in the proceedings, which found that the agency had the "legal authority to include within the scope of investigation, and did in fact include, 'inputs' to imported merchandise, as opposed to the actual imported merchandise itself" (Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing v. United States, CIT #s 24-00250, -252).