The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's decision not to investigate the provision of off-peak electricity for less than adequate remuneration in South Korea after three remands before the trade court. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce reasonably laid out the evidence petitioner Nucor Corp. should have provided to "justify a new subsidy investigation of this subset of the broader electricity pricing scheme."

Opposing Thai tire exporter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations' motion to amend the record, the U.S. and petitioner United Steel, Paper and Forestry each said March 18 that the documents Bridgestone sought to include were untimely and potentially being misrepresented (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).

The U.S. defended its use of its quarterly cost methodology in calculating exporter Officine Tecnosider's antidumping duty rate in the 2020-21 administrative review of the AD order on steel plate from Italy, arguing that petitioner Nucor Corp.'s claims to the contrary fail to show that it's the "one and only" reasonable outcome. Submitting a brief on March 19 in defense of its remand results, Commerce said it wasn't free to ignore evidence of a link between the respondent's costs and sales prices during the review period (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

Parties originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber opposed the government's bid to file a supplemental brief to a status report in a dispute on whether the excluded parties can obtain refunds of CVD cash deposits. The originally excluded parties said the U.S. failed to establish good cause for submitting a reply to the status report (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

German forged steel fluid end products exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen filed a March 17 motion for judgment arguing that, in a review, the Commerce Department had included forged steel products that couldn’t be used in hydraulic pumps in the exporter’s home market sales (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 24-00176).

Importer Under the Weather defended its motion for leave to amend its complaint in a customs case, arguing that the government's grounds for opposition to the motion, untimeliness and prejudice, don't defeat it. The importer said any delay the Court of International Trade might find due to the motion isn't "undue" and that the amendment doesn't prejudice the U.S., since the amendment would add a claim based on the "same transactions and events as the original complaint" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

In another missed deadline case (see 2501070084, 2409100065) and 2501270069), Chinese steel rack exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing said again March 17 that the Commerce Department shouldn’t have hit it with adverse facts available for assuming a deadline extension offered to most separate rate review respondents had also been granted to it (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00085).

The U.S. and Indian frozen shrimp exporter Megaa Moda supported March 7 the Commerce Department’s results on remand of an antidumping duty administrative review (see 2411270055). Finding that Megaa Moda knew certain of its home market sales would be exported required affirmative evidence that the record lacked, they said (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).

Food supplement exporter BASF filed March 17 in opposition to the U.S.’s cross-motion for judgment in its case. It disagreed with the government’s claim that its products didn’t fit the requirements of BASF’s preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).