The Commerce Department improperly used only one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Feb. 16 opinion. Citing a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that held Commerce may not use just one respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review, Judge Timothy Stanceu sent back the agency's respondent selection decision. The judge also blasted Commerce's use of an adverse facts available rate, taken from the petitioner after the one respondent backed out of the investigation, which the agency used for the non-individually selected respondents and the all-others rate.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
U.S. steelmakers Nucor, Steel Dynamics, SSAB Enterprises and Cleveland-Cliffs should not be allowed to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding, plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari argued in a series of three Feb. 15 briefs at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
An Enforce and Protect Act finding of evasion against Blue Pipe Steel Center should not be decided on by the Court of International Trade while the underlying scope issue is still on appeal, argued the government in a Feb. 15 motion at the Court of International Trade. DOJ asked the court to deny a motion for judgment from Blue Pipe, or alternatively, defer its decision until after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolves the scope issue (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00081).
The Court of International Trade properly dismissed importer Rimco's challenge to antidumping and countervailing duty challenge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 15 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the importer filed its case under Section 1581(a), the true home for the action is Section 1581(c) since it challenges the final AD/CVD rates set by the Commerce Department. "The decision of what rate to apply is Commerce’s alone and, for that reason, the claims should have been brought as 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) challenges," the brief said (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 15 confidential opinion granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping case, enjoining the U.S. from "taking any action to enforce, implement, or execute" the duties set by the Commerce Department on steel nails from Oman. Judge M. Miller Baker also barred CBP from collecting AD duty cash deposits on the nails after Oman Fasteners argued that the 154.33% adverse facts available rate set as the cash deposit mark would bankrupt the company (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 16 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation into wind towers from Spain. In the investigation, Commerce picked only one mandatory respondent, hitting it with a 73% adverse facts available rate taken from the petitioner after the company backed out of the investigation. The agency used this rate for the non-individually selected respondents and the all-others rate. Judge Timothy Stanceu, criticizing the "limited and peculiar" situation the agency set up for itself, sent back Commerce's decision to pick only one respondent and use the AFA rate for the all-others margin.
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 16 denied an importer and its owner's motion for reconsideration in a penalty case where they stand accused of customs fraud, as well as their bid to appeal a single issue in the case related to the date the alleged fraud was discovered (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).
The Court of International Trade's recent decision against the use of first sale valuation for Meyer Corp.'s cookware imports "is a cautionary tale" for importers, customs attorney Lawrence Friedman, partner at Barnes Richardson, wrote in a Feb. 15 blog post. In instances in which parties involved in a potential first-sale transaction are related, such as Meyer's, Friedman said that CBP will "take a very detailed look into the whole series of transactions" and that the importer should expect to show that each tier is a bona fide sale for export to the U.S.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: