The Court of International Trade should deny a stay motion in a case involving the provision of electricity at less than adequate remuneration in a countervailing duty case, the South Korean government said in a brief filed July 1.

The Commerce Department erred by finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration conferred a non-measurable benefit in a countervailing duty review, U.S. steel company Nucor Corp. argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade. During the review, Nucor took issue with the evidentiary flaws with the cost data that Commerce used, telling the agency that it was illegal to say that the data reflected market-based costs. The suit mirrors the language in a separate case brought by Nucor over a different CVD review (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00171).

The Court of International Trade in a July 11 order said that counsel for exporter Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. could not withdraw from Hongteo's customs classification lawsuit. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, counsel for Hongteo -- namely, Lawrence Pilon and Serhiy Kiyasov of Rock Trade Law -- could not leave the case without substitute counsel first being identified. Pilon and Kiyasov sought to withdraw as counsel since Hongteo did not pay its outstanding legal fees.

The Court of International Trade in a July 8 opinion dismissed importer Rimco's antidumping and countervailing duty challenge after finding that the claims lack subject-matter jurisdiction at the trade court. Judge Mark Barnett said that Rimco's Eighth Amendment claims could not proceed under Section 1581(a) since they are not contesting the liquidation of the steel wheel entries at issue but instead contest the Commerce Department's actions leading up to the high AD/CVD rates. The judge further ruled that Rimco's claims made under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, cannot stand since the importer could have requested an administrative review of the AD/CVD orders, clearly showing that other avenues of remedy were available.

The Court of International Trade in a July 12 opinion denied the motion from Kevin Ho, owner and director of importer Atria, to dismiss a penalty action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Timothy Reif said that the U.S. properly identified the "who, what, when, where, and how" of Ho's alleged fraud over the alleged illegal importation of high-intensity discharge headlight conversion kits, so personal jurisdiction was established. However, Reif denied in part and granted in part Ho's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the U.S. made insufficient factual allegations over Ho's knowledge and intent to violate customs law based on fraud. The judge did give the U.S. the opportunity to amend its complaint.

The Commerce Department erred by not including exporter Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. in the all-others rate in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India, covering entries in 2019-2020, Echjay argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00172).

The Commerce Department's admission that the administrative case brief in an antidumping duty matter wasn't the right time to bring up arguments over verification procedures reveals the futility of raising verification concerns administratively, plaintiffs led by Ellwood City Forge argued to fight off claims that it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, Ellwood said Commerce's remand results in a separate AD case declaring that 63 days was "far too late" to pursue a request for virtual verification in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 restrictions indicates that raising the issue of virtual verification in the petitioner's case was futile (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).

The Commerce Department verified that countervailing duty respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. and its U.S. customers did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP), in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on July 8. However, Commerce said that it still believes that the use of adverse facts available over the program is warranted since the Chinese government did not provide the requested information supposedly needed for a full analysis of whether the respondent and its U.S. customers benefitted from the EBCP (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00166).

The Court of International Trade in a July 8 opinion dismissed importer Rimco's lawsuit contesting CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on steel wheels from China. Judge Mark Barnett ruled that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter since the liquidation of the entries wasn't a protestable decision. The court instead would have had jurisdiction under Section 1581(c) rather than Section 1581(a) and (i) as claimed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could have raised its claims -- including one that says the duties violate the Eighth Amendment -- by requesting a review of the AD/CVD orders, Barnett said.

The Court of International Trade in a July 11 order said that counsel for exporter Guangdong Hongteo Technology Co. can't withdraw from Hongteo's customs case. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the plaintiff is a company and not a person, counsel for Hongteo -- namely, Lawrence Pilon and Serhiy Kyasov of Rock Trade Law -- must first identify substitute counsel. Pilon and Kyasov sought to withdraw as counsel since Hongteo didn't pay its outstanding legal fees.