The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s duty drawback calculation in its final remand redetermination for an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, AD respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret (Assan) said in its July 31 response comments (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00246).
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 3 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's decision to grant a constructed export price offset to the mandatory respondents in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the review, Commerce said the respondents' quantitative analyses were deficient, but because the agency had not told the respondent that it required more information, it granted the offsets. Judge Timothy Reif sent back the case "in view of Commerce's failure in the instant case to comply with its" statutory obligations.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 3 opinion reversed the Court of International Trade's decision tossing a $5.7 million customs penalty suit from the U.S. against importer Katana Racing for lack of jurisdiction. The trade court said Katana properly revoked a statute of limitations waiver, making the government's suit untimely. However, Judges Sharon Prost, Alvin Schall and Todd Hughes said the statute of limitations "is not a jurisdictional time limit" and instead provides an "affirmative defense" that can be waived. While the appellate court said CIT erred in tossing the suit for lack of jurisdiction, Katana is still free to claim that its statute of limitations waiver was void as part of an affirmative defense.
No explanation could make the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test, used to root out "masked" dumping, reasonable, the Canadian government and eight Canadian exporters argued in a proposed amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Seeking to tack their arguments onto the case in which the appellate court originally questioned the agency's use of the test, the amici said that Commerce is not using the d test "in any coherent sense" (Stupp Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
Three plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. as being "directly relevant" to their own lawsuit. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by refusing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the EAPA proceeding (see 2307270038). In their case against CBP's finding of evasion of the AD/CVD orders on glycine from China, plaintiffs Newtrend USA Co., Starille and Nutrawave Co. said the Royal Brush decision relates to their first count, which also says CBP violated their due process rights. The companies said they are prepared to submit briefs on the significance of the opinion ahead of the deadline for the U.S. and the petitioner to submit their reply briefs (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).
The International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil with those of China, India, Japan and the U.K. in sunset reviews "conflicts" with Court of International Trade precedent, U.S. steel company Cleveland-Cliffs said in a July 31 reply brief. The company also said the commission didn't follow precedent when it decided not to cumulate imports from Brazil with those from South Korea (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 22-00257).
Valve pressure relief components should have been granted Section 301 exclusions, importer Bray International and three of its affiliates said in a July 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Bray International v. U.S., CIT # 21-00332).
The Court of International Trade should toss a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to reconsider its injury finding on hot-rolled steel from Turkey for lack of jurisdiction, four U.S. steel companies said. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on July 31, Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises argued that Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, is not the proper jurisdiction for the case since Erdemir could have sought relief under Section 1581(c) (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).
The Commerce Department committed a host of errors in its 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, mandatory respondent Riverside Plywood Corp. and its cross-owned affiliate Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. said in a July 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The result of the review was a 17.06% CVD rate for the companies (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: