The Commerce Department failed to comply with a Court of International Trade remand order in a countervailing duty case concerning forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, exporter Edelstahl said in its Sept. 6 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Edelstahl's comment contested the second remand redetermination by the Commerce Department, which continued to find that Germany's KAV program was de jure specific and could be countervailed (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).
The Commerce Department's alleged unequal treatment of the parties in a scope ruling justifies judgment in favor of the importers, Elysium Tiles and Elysium Tile Florida argued in an Aug. 31 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns a scope ruling issued with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tiles from China. Elysium argues that Commerce improperly met with Florida Tile, a member of the AD/CVD petitioner Coalition of Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s remand redetermination of an antidumping duty investigation on OCTG from South Korea, DOJ argued. The court only ordered Commerce to reconsider a specific issue on remand, which the department did, DOJ wrote in its Sept. 6 remand comments to the Court of International Trade (Nexteel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00083).
The Commerce Department reconsidered its rejection of exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's proposed quality code for sour service petroleum transport on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its redetermination on Sept. 7, the agency said it used the exporter's proposed quality code due to its decision in Bohler Bleche BMBH & Co. v. U.S., leading to an increase in Dillinger's dumping rate to 4.99% as part of the antidumping duty investigation on steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT # 17-00158).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 6 opinion rejected a U.S. motion to dismiss cases from three importers challenging the Commerce Department's denial of their Section 233 steel tariff exclusion requests. The government said the cases should be tossed since they concern entries that already had been finally liquidated, but Judge M. Miller Baker held that it's possible for the court to order liquidation in Administrative Procedure Act cases brought under Section 1581(i), even if liquidation is final.
International trade attorney Parick McLain will leave WilmerHale, where he worked as counsel since 2005, and join King & Spalding as senior counsel. Per his LinkedIn page, McLain joined Wilmer after serving as a law clerk to Court of International Trade Judge Jane Restani. His practice centered on trade policy, World Trade Organization litigation and trade remedies proceedings.
The U.S. Lumber Coalition -- the petitioner in the fourth review of the antidumping duty order on lumber from Canada -- welcomed the Canadian government's stated intent to appeal the review results to the Court of International Trade. The judicial appeal is a "welcome change" in Ottawa's approach to the case because the nation "traditionally insists on requesting a United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement panel for their appeals," the coalition said.
The U.S. Lumber Coalition, which represents sawmills and owners of timberlands, said U.S. courts are the better venue for resolving legal questions on trade remedies, so its members are glad that Canada is going to the Court of International Trade rather than asking for a dispute panel under USMCA.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. and antidumping duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to respond to the "critical arguments" raised by exporter Dongkuk S&C Co. in a case on the AD investigation on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, Dongkuk told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a Sept. 1 reply brief, Dongkuk said both the government and the coalition did not, or could not, establish that the Commerce Department relied on substantial evidence when it weight averaged the respondent's steel plate cost for all reported control numbers (CONNUMs) (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #23-1419).