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 dismiss a case seeking to stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, the ITC argued in an Oct. 24 motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the claims are moot, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the brief said (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, CIT #22-00307).

The whole U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should rehear a case on whether a group of domestic steel manufacturers have the right to intervene in cases challenging denied exclusion requests from Section 232 national security tariffs, U.S. Steel argued in an Oct. 24 motion for rehearing. The outcome of the litigation will have an "obvious impact" on U.S. Steel, and the majority's ruling in the opinion cannot be squared with key Supreme Court precedent, the appellant said.

CBP erred when it assessed antidumping duties on steel threaded rod to strike pin anchors imported from China, Midwest Fastener said in an Oct. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Midwest Fastener v. U.S., CIT #21-00535). The complaint contests the denial by CBP of Midwest Fastener's protest concerning the assessment of antidumping duties on one entry of strike pin anchors imported from China through the Port of Chicago valued at nearly $17,000. At liquidation, CBP assessed AD at the rate of 206% under case number A-570-932, which covers steel threaded rod from China. Midwest Fastener claims the strike pin anchors do not fall within the scope of the case and were therefore incorrectly assessed. The company has asked the court to order the port director in Chicago to reliquidate the entry without the assessment of AD and to refund the duties assessed on the entry, plus interest.

CBP erred when it assessed antidumping duties on steel threaded rod to strike pin anchors imported from China, Midwest Fastener said in an Oct. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Midwest Fastener v. U.S., CIT #21-00535). The complaint contests the denial by CBP of Midwest Fastener's protest concerning the assessment of antidumping duties on one entry of strike pin anchors imported from China through the Port of Chicago valued at nearly $17,000. At liquidation, CBP assessed AD at the rate of 206% under case number A-570-932, which covers steel threaded rod from China. Midwest Fastener claims the strike pin anchors do not fall within the scope of the case and were therefore incorrectly assessed. The company has asked the court to order the port director in Chicago to reliquidate the entry without the assessment of AD and to refund the duties assessed on the entry, plus interest.

The Commerce Department properly dropped its finding that a particular market situation existed in India for hot-rolled coil steel, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 24 opinion. In its second remand results over the issue, Commerce conceded it was unable to further explain how the market phenomena affected hot-rolled coil costs or "how those phenomena were unique to India," dropping its PMS finding and subsequent PMS adjustment under respectful protest. Judge Claire Kelly said this was backed by substantial evidence.

The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a particular market situation affected inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea in remand results submitted on Oct. 24 to the Court of International Trade. Submitting the remand redetermination after a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling, Commerce did say that it still believes imports of low-priced Chinese steel could contribute to the existence of a PMS and that, based on the Federal Circuit's ruling, it could in the future defend a PMS finding solely on this ground. The result of the remand left the dumping margins unchanged (Nexteel Co. v. United States, CIT #18-00083).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order gave the U.S. a one-week deadline extension to Nov. 4 in the Section 301 cases to file its response to the plaintiffs’ comments on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative remand results. The government argued in its motion for extension that good cause exists for the delay (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 21 opinion let exporter Oman Fasteners stop paying cash deposits over its potential Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff liability in a case on the validity of the national security duties on "derivative" products. A previous court order let Oman Fasteners stop making duty deposits after reaching an agreement with the U.S. on the resumption of bonding. The U.S. said the company wasn't entitled to bonding since it had failed to abide by the arrangement. A three-judge panel ruled that the U.S. shall exclude Oman Fasteners from the need to post cash deposits for potential Section 232 liability until the U.S. can get another order from the court or Oman Fasteners voluntarily enters into an agreement that modifies the terms of the court's opinion.

Plaintiff-intervenor Sigma will appeal a September Court of International Trade ruling finding that the Commerce Department properly included Vandewater International's steel branch outlets in the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. In an Oct. 21 notice of appeal, Sigma said it would take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, Judge Leo Gordon said that while the plaintiffs, led by Vandewater, showed information on the record could back a finding that their outlets could be excluded from the scope of the order, he could not agree that Commerce acted unreasonably in reaching the opposing conclusion using each of the (k)(2) factors (see 2209080056) (Vandewater International Inc. v. United States, CIT #18-00199).