A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling is "bears directly on, and fully supports" plaintiffs Wilmar Trading's, Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia's and Wilmar Oleo North America's arguments in an antidumping duty case over whether a particular market situation exists, the plaintiffs said in a March 21 notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade. The opinion, Nexteel Co. v. U.S., set up a bright line rule over how Commerce can use its PMS authority that cuts against the PMS determination made by Commerce in the antidumping duty matter contested by the plaintiffs, the notice said (Wilmar Trading PTE v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00121).

German exporter BGH Edestahl Siegen's claim that its higher costs preempt any countervailability findings don't comport with U.S. countervailing duty law, U.S. manufacturer Ellwood City Forge said in a March 22 brief at the Court of International Trade. Filing a motion for judgment, Ellwood said CVD statute and the Commerce Department's regulations don't dismiss subsidy programs that alleviate high costs that may be high due to government policies themselves (BGH Edestahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT #21-00080).

The Court of International Trade partially granted a motion for an injunction in an antidumping duty case, but rejected the mattress companies' bid for an open-ended injunction enjoining liquidation of their entries. Judge Timothy Reif said that the plaintiffs, led by Ashley Furniture Industries, didn't show that the threat of liquidation of their future entries don't pose irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits and that the public interest is served by an open-ended injunction. The judge granted the injunction through the end of the first administrative review of the AD order.

The Court of International Trade sustained in a March 28 opinion the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into wood moldings and millwork products from China. Judge Leo Gordon held that Chinese exporter Jeld-Wen failed to make its case that laminated veneer lumber is not included in the domestic like product for wood mouldings and millwork, and that other economic factors, not imports, caused the domestic injury. On the latter point, Gordon said that Jeld-Wen needed to show that its conclusion is the only one to be drawn from the record and not the preferred one -- something the plaintiff failed to do.

The Court of International Trade dismissed a case brought by the U.S. seeking over $5.7 million in unpaid duties from Katana Racing on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In the March 28 opinion, Judge Thomas Aquilino found that CBP improperly pursued the violations despite indications of identity theft and that the statute of limitations had run out. "Considering CBP’s apparent recalcitrance in specifying to the defendant the actual §1592(a) violation it committed, the defendant has provided reasonable justification for its revocation of its last [statute of limitations waiver], with the result that this action is now barred by the passage of time," said Aquilino.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative sought confidential advice from “private-sector advisory committees,” believed to be under the Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) program managed jointly by USTR and the Commerce Department, before imposing the List 3 Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports, Stephen Vaughn, the agency’s then-general counsel, wrote then-USTR Robert Lighthizer on Sept. 17, 2018. The document was one of about a dozen “decision memos” spanning 488 pages that DOJ filed March 24 in the Section 301 litigation docket (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052) at the Court of International Trade as an “appendix” to oral argument held Feb. 1 (see 2202010059).

The Court of International Trade partially remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on utility-scale wind towers from Vietnam, in a March 24 confidential opinion. The U.S. trade group Wind Tower Trade Coalition brought the case to argue in favor of an adverse facts available rate for an exporter. According to the coalition's complaint, the plaintiff challenged Commerce's decision to rely on respondent CS Wind's South Korean affiliate's sales revenue for wind towers as the denominator in the subsidy calculations rather than CS Wind's own sales revenue. The coalition also said that Commerce erred in relying on CS Wind's alleged contradictory reporting on the country of origin and supplies for its steel plate inputs when calculating a subsidy rate for the Import Duty Exemptions on Imports of Raw Materials for Exporting Goods program (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT #20-03692).

The Court of International Trade should not grant the Commerce Department's motion to extend the deadline to file remand results in an antidumping duty case, given the agency's mismanagement of the remand period, exporter SeAH Steel Corporation said in a March 24 brief. If the court does grant Commerce's motion, however, the time should only be extended for two business days plus one business hour -- the same time Commerce gave SeAH to file comments on the agency's remand. SeAH dubbed Commerce's conduct "egregious" and an expression of its "failure to consult in good faith" over the remand schedule (Stupp Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #15-00334).

U.S. steel manufacturer Maverick Tube lied to the Commerce Department when it objected to importer Maple Leaf Marketing's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests, MLM told the Court of International Trade in a March 18 brief. As such, Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security's decision to deny these requests cannot be sustained, MLM argued. It urged the trade court to remand the case so Commerce can add communications the agency had with a subject matter expert on whose word the exclusion requests were denied (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT #20-00125).

DOJ is again arguing that it can file counterclaims in Court of International Trade classification cases -- even after more than four years into a case. Days after defending its counterclaim in another denied protest case involving importer Cyber Power (see 2203180042), DOJ is now arguing that delays by another importer in a separate case, Second Nature, allow it to bring a counterclaim despite the time elapsed (Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States, CIT #17-00271).