Antidumping duty respondent Grupo Simec failed to prove that it would suffer immediate and irreparable harm without an injunction against AD cash deposits, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 24 opinion denying the preliminary injunction motion. Judge Stephen Vaden added that Grupo Simec's evidence purportedly showing how it would be harmed without the injunction contained conclusory evidence that, if held to be sufficient to establish harm, would "eviscerate the operation of the antidumping laws."

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping, ruling that the agency "adequately addressed" questions raised by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the use of the test. The appellate court had held that use of the d test could be "problematic" when the distribution of a respondent's sales isn't normal, or in cases of few data points or minimal variance in the exporter's sales. Judge Claire Kelly held that Commerce sufficiently explained that the test adequately functions despite those concerns.

Exporter Evraz Inc. moved to dismiss its own antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 22 notice of dismissal. The case concerns the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada. Evraz moved to dismiss the case under CIT's rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which says that the plaintiff can dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT #23-00012).

U.S. Steel Corp. filed a second bid to intervene in a Court of International Trade case over an International Trade Commission injury proceeding, arguing that it meets the standard for permissive intervention since the outcome of the case could "jeopardize the antidumping order that U.S. Steel petitioned for and now benefits from." U.S. Steel also said that "it makes logical sense to allow" its intervention since its arguments will center on whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik's claims, and the jurisdictional issue will "impact the companion cases where U.S. Steel has a statutory right to intervene" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).

CBP should remand and terminate an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found CEK Group evaded an antidumping duty order because the underlying allegation was insufficient, not containing information required to find a reasonable suspicion of evasion of an antidumping duty order, CEK argued in a Feb. 15 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (CEK Group LLC v. United States, CIT # 22-00082).

The use of an entire population of data instead of a sample "sufficiently negates" the questions raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the use of the Cohen's d test in the differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 23 opinion rejecting antidumping duty respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s bid for reconsideration.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 17 opinion made public Feb. 24 upheld the Commerce Department's interpretation of the Major Inputs Rule to allow the use of third-country surrogate data as "information available" for finding the cost of production of a major input bought from an affiliated non-market economy-based supplier.

The commerce secretary's report allowing President Donald Trump to take tariff action on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act nor can it be reviewed for arbitrariness, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 20 reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if it was up for review, the secretary did not misconstrue the statute since it does not require the report to make a finding on the imminent nature of any threat to national security, the government said (USP Holdings, et al. v. United States, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 22-565).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 opinion denied plaintiff Grupo Simec's bid for a preliminary injunction against cash deposits in an antidumping duty case covering rebar from Mexico. Judge Stephen Vaden said Grupo Simec failed to clear the "high standard" of proving it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction because the company failed to show the "immediacy" of the harm it would suffer should it continue to pay cash deposits.

The Commerce Department arbitrarily and capriciously applied partial adverse facts available when calculating a final antidumping duty on tapered roller bearings, even though the missing information was irrelevant and could not be obtained from unrelated third parties, manufacturer Tainai said in a Feb. 21 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Shanghai Tainai Bearing v. U.S., CIT # 23-00020).