While the Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions to reconsider the application of a Brazilian consumer price index (CPI) to a Mexican labor rate, the agency still used "unsupported and arbitrary justifications" to back its refusal to use Brazilian labor data in an antidumping duty case, plaintiff American Keg Co. argued. Filing comments on Commerce's remand results on Jan. 26 at the trade court, the plaintiff claimed that Commerce abused its discretion by using Mexican International Labour Organization (ILO) data that appears to not have been available at the time of the investigation (New American Keg v. United States, CIT # 20-00008).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 27 order dismissed an appeal led by Ellwood City Forge on the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification in an antidumping duty investigation. The appellants moved to voluntarily dismiss the action before filing their opening brief at the appellate court. Counsel for Ellwood did not reply to request for comment on the reason for dismissing the case (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1382).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 27 order granted a U.S. motion to add a questionnaire deficiencies analysis for antidumping respondent Grupo Simec to the record in a case on an AD review of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico. Judge Stephen Vaden said the analysis is "properly part of the record" because the Commerce Department considered it in making the review's final decision, and "Commerce's decision cannot properly be reviewed without its inclusion." The judge added there is no "compelling evidence Commerce acted in bad faith," despite Grupo Simec's claim the agency did just that when it only sought to add the document to the record four months after the final results.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 26 order gave defendant-appellee Mid Continent Steel & Wire until Feb. 22 to file a reply brief over the use of total adverse facts available rates for two non-cooperative respondents. The appellee said it needed the extra time due to "a significant volume of time-sensitive work arising from other cases being handled by" Mid Continent's counsel (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 25 order dismissed an antidumping duty case brought by exporter Echjay Forgings after the company moved to toss the action. The case concerned the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. Echjay had argued that the Commerce Department erred by not including the company in the all-others rate (see 2207080064). Echjay is also making identical challenges at CIT over the first administrative review of the order and at Commerce over the third administrative review (Echjay Forgings v. United States, CIT #22-00172).

The Commerce Department slashed the dumping margin for exporter Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries on remand in an antidumping review after accepting the respondent's answers to Section A of the AD questionnaire. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 26, Commerce dropped the dumping margin for Ajmal to 0.57% after using the company's own data as opposed to adverse facts available to calculate the margin. The agency originally rejected the submission after it was submitted late by less than two hours due to COVID-19-related technical difficulties (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00587).

The Commerce Department properly found that foreign manufacturer BlueScope Steel did not reimburse its affiliated importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for the amount of antidumping duties BlueScope Americas paid on imports of hot-rolled steel flat products, defendant-appellees BlueScope and BlueScope Americas argued in a Jan. 25 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petitioner U.S. Steel's claims to the contrary rest on a misinterpretation of the record and inappropriately claim BlueScope Americas was indirectly reimbursed via formula price provisions laid out in a supply agreement between BlueScope and BlueScope Americas, the brief said (U.S. Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).

The International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate imports from Brazil with imports from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K. in a hot-rolled steel injury proceeding violated the law, U.S. steel maker Cleveland-Cliffs argued in a Jan. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The ITC focused on the likely volume of the Brazilian imports in the cumulation analysis, failing to support the decision with substantial evidence and failing to address its departure from its past practice (Cleveland-Cliffs v. United States, CIT #22-00355).

The Commerce Department arbitrarily and capriciously found that exporter Officine Tecnosider failed to challenge the agency's decision to reject quarterly cost methodology in an antidumping review, the exporter argued in a Jan. 25 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce further violated the law by rejecting quarterly cost methodology based on its review of the three largest inputs' quarterly average prices and by failing to calculate an accurate dumping margin, the brief said (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 opinion ordered the Commerce Department to drop to zero a 26.50% estimated subsidy rate for the provision of land to an affiliate of respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited (GFL) that was included in GFL's countervailing duty rate in a CVD investigation. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce should not have included the subsidy because the agency overlooked the type of relationship the regulation requires between subsidies to inputs and the downstream product in the production chain.