The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's decision not to use adverse facts available for Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's billing adjustments in an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, in a March 1 opinion made public March 8.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should again remand the results of a countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea to address allegations the Korean government provided off-peak electricity for less-than-adequate-remuneration, Nucor argued March 2 at the Court of International Trade. It also argued Commerce should reconsider whether to treat POSCO's affiliate, POSCO Plantec, as a cross-owned input supplier (Nucor v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).
The Commerce Department correctly calculated production costs in its final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina, DOJ said in its March 3 response to a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Nexco v. United States, CIT # 22-00203).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 6 reactivated an appeal from U.S. Steel that had been on hold pending a bid to reconsider the underlying Court of International Trade decision (see 2211020073). CIT in February denied SeAH Steel's motion for reconsideration of its decision upholding the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping (SeAH Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1109).
The U.S. and importer Root Sciences struck a settlement in a case on whether Root's cannabis crude extract recovery machine imports should be seized as "drug paraphernalia," the importer said in a March 7 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Under the settlement, CBP will release the merchandise to the plaintiff and Root will end its suit, according to the consent motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1795).
The Court of International Trade in a March 1 opinion made public March 8 sent back parts of the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, ruling the Commerce Department did not properly explain its decision not to use an adverse inference for its treatment of respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's billing adjustments. Judge Gary Katzmann also remanded the case, per Commerce's request, over the agency's duty neutral method for calculating Assan's duty drawback adjustment. Katzmann upheld Assan's duty drawback adjustment itself, Commerce's denial of a home market rebate adjustment to Assan and the agency's reliance on Assan's affiliated freight costs.
CBP legally initiated an Enforce and Protect Act case on Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds even though they had been ruled exempt from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, in a Commerce Department scope ruling upheld by the Court of International Trade (see 2212190051), the government told the trade court in a March 7 brief. CBP said EAPA petitioner Endura Products' evasion allegations against the importer came before the CIT decision and were valid "at the time they were made," DOJ said (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00185).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a March 3 order consolidated three actions challenging the International Trade Commission's final determination in the injury investigation on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea and related investigations by the Commerce Department (Tenaris Bay City, et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00344). The cases, brought by Tenairs Bay City, Maverick Tube, Ipsco Tubulars, Tenaris Global Services and Siderca, argued, among other things, that the ITC improperly cumulated imports from the four countries despite evidence that Mexican and Argentinian OCTG had different uses, were sold to different users and did not compete with Russian and South Korean OCTG (see 2301180047). The plaintiffs also claimed that Commerce incorrectly evaluated industry support calculations by the antidumping and countervailing duty petitioners.