The Court of International Trade on Jan. 15 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to deny exporters Hyundai Steel Co. and Husteel Co.'s constructed export price offsets in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Judge Timothy Reif said that Commerce reasonably said a "per-unit analysis" was needed to properly assess whether the home market and CEP sales were made at a more advanced stage of distribution and that neither respondent submitted such an analysis. The judge also said Hyundai received adequate notice of any insufficiencies in its submissions.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Nebraska resident Byungmin Chae will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit his second lawsuit challenging his results of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, he said in a notice of appeal. The Court of International Trade dismissed the suit after finding that it was precluded by Chae's first case challenging the test (see 2411130013). Chae is seeking credit for one question on the exam to cross the threshold of 75% correct in order to qualify as a customs broker (Byungmin Chae v. United States, CIT # 24-00086).
CBP reversed its finding that importer Zinus evaded the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. CBP made the decision after incorporating a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that seven models of metal and wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the AD order (Zinus v. United States, CIT # 23-00272).
Indian aluminum sheet exporter Hindalco Industries brought a complaint Jan. 10 to the Court of International Trade, saying the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).
The Commerce Department engaged in a "fishing expedition" during the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizer from Morocco, seeking information on potential subsidies "without a scintilla of evidence" indicating that any countervailable benefits existed, exporter OCP argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 13, OCP argued that Commerce went beyond its statutory authority and "should never have investigated potential subsidies based on information provided by OCP" (OCP v. United States, CIT # 24-00227).
Trade attorney Kristen Smith has departed Sandler Travis, the firm said in a notice to the Court of International Trade. Smith worked at Sandler Travis for over 20 years, joining in 2005, most recently as a practice leader and member of the trade remedies practice.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiff tomato exporter Bioparques de Occidente, the U.S. and defendant-intervenor the Florida Tomato Exchange each supported Jan. 7 the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in a case involving a 27-year-old antidumping duty investigation after a consolidated plaintiff opposed it (see 2412040052) (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00204).
The Commerce Department unlawfully chose to break with its past practice of not considering subsidies provided by the Russian government prior to April 1, 2002, in a countervailing duty review on phosphate fertilizers, respondent JSC Apatit argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Jan. 9, Apatit argued that Commerce failed to apply this cut-off date when analyzing whether mining rights were provided to the company for less than adequate remuneration in the 2022 review of the CVD order (Joint Stock Company Apatit v. United States, CIT # 24-00226).