South Korean exporter Husteel Co. challenged the Commerce Department's decision to use one antidumping duty mandatory respondent's third-country sales to calculate another mandatory respondent's constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price profit. Filing its complaint on May 16 at the Court of International Trade, Husteel, a non-examined company in the relevant AD review, also argued that Commerce violated the law in its application of neutral facts available over the calculation of one of the respondent's U.S. affiliate's yield loss on further manufacturing operations (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00143).

The Court of International Trade in a May 17 order granted a stay requested by the plaintiffs in an antidumping duty scope dispute, led by Chinese exporter Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. but contested by the U.S. As such, consideration of the U.S.'s motion to dimsiss and all other proceedings will be stayed until 21 days after the Commerce Department issues its final decision in the changed circumstances review over the AD investigation on multilayered wood flooring from China, the court said (Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00502).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s stay motion in a case over an antidumping duty investigation since the stay risks harming Mexican exporter Building Systems de Mexico, the company argued in a May 16 reply brief. Seeing as the appeal would have the plaintiff wait until another case is ruled on at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, staying proceedings in the present case could risk the imposition of an antidumping duty order, requiring BSM's payment of cash deposits and participation in "costly" administrative reviews, the brief said (Building Systems de Mexico v. United States, CIT #20-00069).

The Court of International Trade in a May 10 opinion made public May 17 upheld parts and remanded parts of the Commerce Department's remand results in a case brought by Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co. over the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett sent back Commerce's decision to use facts available over Hyundai's reporting of contested parts and its decision to use total adverse facts available to calculate Hyundai's margin. The judge upheld all other aspects of the review, including the use of AFA over Hyundai's reporting of service-related revenue and its completeness failure at verification.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Australian steel exporter BlueScope Steel, along with its affiliates Australian Iron & Steel and BlueScope Steel Americas, voiced their support for the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade. Filing comments at CIT on May 16, BlueScope backed Commerce's position which slashed the antidumping duties for BlueScope from 99.20% to 4.95% after dropping its reliance on adverse facts available based on BlueScope's U.S. sales quantity and value reporting data (BlueScope Steel Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00057).

Section 232 national security tariffs are not remedial and should not be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's U.S. price, and their inclusion in that price does not constitute double counting of duties, AD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a May 13 reply brief that came in response to arguments to the contrary from Nippon Steel Corp. (Nippon Steel Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).

The Court of International Trade issued a May 17 opinion addressing two cases brought by Voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the importer and purchaser of entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, respectively. The cases both concern reliquidation requests on various steel entries without the Section 232 duties, based on the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security's approval of exclusion requests. The exclusions each originally contained an invalid Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading, but by the time the error was discovered in both cases, CBP had liquidated the entries with the duties.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: