Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition opened its case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the Commerce Department's decision on remand finding that shipbuilding company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of respondent Kaptan Demir, is not Kaptan's cross-owned input supplier. Filing an opening brief on April 2, the petitioner said that Commerce originally got it right in cross-attributing Nur's subsidies to Kaptan in the 2018 CVD review on rebar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision to countervail exporter KG Dongbu's three debt-to-equity swaps after initially declining to countervail them in the preceding three countervailing duty reviews on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Commerce can't reverse its countervailability decisions without new information. The judge also remanded Commerce's decision to pass-through benefits from the three debt-to-equity restructurings to KG Dongbu after its ownership changed between the prior three and present reviews, along with the agency's calculation of the company's creditworthiness benchmark and unequityworthy discount rate.
The Court of International Trade on April 4 sustained the Commerce Department's 2020-21 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani said Commerce's use of the invoice date as the date of sale instead of the contract date for both respondents, Kaptan Demir and Colakoglu Metalurji, was properly supported. The judge said evidence from past reviews supports using the invoice date. She said terms of the contract permitted deviation in a material term and the quantities listed on the invoice were "materially different from those in the contract."
The Court of International Trade on April 1 dismissed a customs suit from Blockstream Services USA for lack of prosecution. The suit was put in the customs case management calendar and not removed "at the expiration of the applicable period of time of removal." Blockstream Services brought the action to contest the classification of its cryptocurrency miners. CBP put the items under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8543.70.9960, dutiable at 2.6%, while the company argued for subheading 8471.50.0150, free of duty (Blockstream Services USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00101).
The U.S. sought a default judgment April 2 in its case against Cherish Your Health Food Inc., a Chinese fresh garlic exporter that the government said hadn’t paid antidumping duties on five entries (U.S. v. Cherish Your Health Food Inc., CIT # 23-00230).
A number of consolidated plaintiffs moved for summary judgment April 1 on a second issue in a case opposing a scope inquiry and affirmative circumvention finding regarding the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security continued to deny importer Seneca Food's eight Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests for its tin mill products on remand at the Court of International Trade. BIS said that U.S. Steel can make the same products in a sufficient quantity and in a timely manner to satisfy Seneca's needs, prompting the rejection of the exclusion bids (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).
The Court of International Trade in a March 11 decision made public April 1 sent back the Commerce Department's departure from the expected method in setting the separate rate companies' rate in the 2016-17 review on the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China.
NEW YORK -- In a marathon four-and-a-half hour oral argument session last week, Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden sharply questioned the International Trade Commission's redaction process in an injury proceeding on phosphate fertilizers (OCP v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: