The Court of International Trade should allow four domestic steel producers to intervene on the side of the International Trade Commission in a case contesting the ITC's injury finding in an antidumping duty investigation on hot-rolled steel imports from Turkey, those producers argued in a Feb. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349)
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results after the agency further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and the financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios in the 2018-19 antidumping review on activated carbon, both DOJ and defendent-intervenors told CIT in separate responses submitted March 1 (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00131).
The Court of International Trade in a March 1 confidential opinion denied parts and granted parts of Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's motion for judgment in a case concerning the antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, remanding aspects of the case to the Commerce Department. In a letter, Judge Gary Katzmann gave the litigants until March 7 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00246).
The Court of International Trade on March 3 granted a motion for a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of unliquidated activated carbon entries from separate rate respondents Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon and Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon. Judge Mark Barnett said that he was unpersuaded by the government's claims that the PI motion illegally expands the issues in the case. Citing past CIT judgments, the judge held the enlargement concept is reserved only for cases where an intervenor adds new legal claims to those already before the court.
The Court of International Trade in a March 3 order upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case which slashed the dumping margin for respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries after the agency accepted the company's answers to the Section A questionnaire response originally rejected as untimely filed. The document was turned in late due to technical complications as a result of firm Barnes Richardson's switch to a work-from-home environment. The court remanded the issue since Commerce gave itself numerous extensions while rejecting the two-hour late submission.
Solar panel mounts made by China Custom Manufacturing do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a March 2 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade, judges Pauline Newman, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham said the matter is "governed squarely" by the appellate court's ruling in Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. U.S., which said a "part or subassembly ... cannot be a finished product."
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 order stayed a conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department brought by Amsted Rail Co. involving its former counsel, pending resolution of a related matter against the International Trade Commission currently at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Gary Katzmann said that resolution of the related case will likely be controlling on the issues in the present action (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 24 denied plaintiff Norca Industrial's motion to reconsider the trade court's order staying proceedings of an Enforce and Protect Act case pending resolution of a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the order after holding a status conference the same day (Norca Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00192).
The Commerce Department wrongly denied Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products despite a lack of domestic supply, Seneca Foods Corporation said in its Feb. 28 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The motion challenges eight decisions by Commerce denying Seneca’s requests for exclusions from Section 232 tariffs for tin mill products consisting of steel (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).