A proposed remand order that would force the International Trade Commission to reconsider a 2021 final injury determination in an antidumping duty case on methionine from Spain and Japan overly restricts the ITC's authority and discretion, defendant-intervenor Novus International argued in its Feb. 8 response to the draft order (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT # 21-00562).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision upholding President Donald Trump's imposition of Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and aluminum derivative products provides further evidence that exporter Oman Fasteners will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued. Filing a motion to take judicial notice at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7, the exporter said that in light of the Federal Circuit's decision it will be required to pay the Section 232 duties on its steel nails entered after Feb. 8, 2020 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).

The Court of International Trade erred by relying on information not presented to the Commerce Department in a scope case, misinterpreting the International Trade Commission's findings in the original injury proceeding and mischaracterizing statements in other ITC cases, appellant Wheatland Tube Co. argued in a Feb. 3 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe's arguments supporting the CIT's analysis "are unpersuasive," since they ignore the plain language of the relevant antidumping duty order, the brief said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 9 opinion again called the Commerce Department's non-market economy policies into question, sending back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the fifth administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from China. On remand, Commerce continued to find that AD respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. failed to show that it was not controlled by the Chinese state. Judge Richard Eaton said that since Commerce has not shown its policy of assigning mandatory respondents the one non-market economy rate to have either statutory or regulatory backing, the agency must reconsider how it legally hit Jilin with the China-wide rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 9 opinion rejected Meyer Corp.'s bid for first sale treatment of its cookware imports, with Judge Thomas Aquilino denying the importer's request for a retrial. The judge held firm on a prior judgment in the case -- before it was appealed to the Federal Circuit -- which held that, because the court doesn't know the extent to which parent company Meyer Holdings had the ability to influence the price paid for the goods sold between affiliates, the use of first sale was not supported.

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a penalty case against defendant Zhe "John" Liu since the statute of limitations had run out by the time the case was filed, and because the government has not established how Liu was connected to the allegedly fraudulent scheme, Liu argued in a Feb 7 brief at the Court of International Trade (U.S. vs. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).

The Court of International Trade held oral arguments on Feb. 7 in the massive litigation over the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. During the nearly two-hour affair, Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves probed the parties' positions on whether the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with the Administrative Procedure Act by properly considering comments made on the proposed tariffs when imposing the duties on $500 billion of Chinese goods (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).

President Donald Trump legally expanded the Section 232 national security tariffs to include steel and aluminum "derivative" products despite implementing the expansion beyond procedural deadlines laid out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Feb. 7 opinion. Relying on the appellate court's opinion in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said that the president can adjust the tariffs beyond these time limits if it relates to the original plan of action laid out in the initial Section 232 tariff action, the Federal Circuit said that the expansion of the tariffs was related to the original plan.

The Commerce Department failed to support its finding that the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration conferred a non-measurable benefit in a countervailing duty proceeding involving goods from South Korea, CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a Feb. 3 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nucor also railed against Commerce's decision not to conduct verification of the South Korean government's questionnaire responses (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT #23-00003).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 6 order denied defendant-intervenor Endura Products' motion for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Columbia Aluminum Products, pending the resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the stay motion failed to show that it would serve the twin objectives of "fairness to the litigants and judicial economy."