The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 31 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton gave the litigants until June 7 to review the bracketed confidential information. The case, brought by U.S. Steel Corp., challenges Commerce's alleged failure to address the company's arguments over whether a reimbursement of the antidumping duties was occurring between the Australian producer and its affiliated U.S. importer (United States Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03815).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reverse the Court of International Trade's judgment sustaining the International Trade Commission's finding that imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Chile and Mexico did not harm the domestic industry, petitioner Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) said in a May 27 reply brief. The appellees in the case are "not even in agreement amongst themselves" over what the ITC decided in the case or why, and they have "failed to adequately defend" the "specific legal issues" raised by AISC, the brief said (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1176).

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 Commerce Department again defended the use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to detect "masked" dumping in remand results filed on May 26 at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the court's order instructing the agency to address questions on the use of the test raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Commerce said that the appellate court's chief concern -- that the test as used by Commerce did not satisfy certain statistical criteria -- is not applicable in the present case (Marmen Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00169).

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

The Commerce Department wrongly granted a price adjustment used in two antidumping duty respondents' margins for differences in levels of trade (LOT) between the U.S. constructed export price (CEP) sales and sales made in the home market of South Korea, AD petitioner Wheatland Tube argued in a May 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Wheatland Tube v. United States, CIT #22-00160).

The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion made public May 27 again rejected the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available over the subsidy rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation. Judge Richard Eaton ruled that Commerce did not support its position that certain information was necessary to verify that CVD respondent Zhejiang Junyue Standard Part Co.'s U.S. customers used the program. The judge also ruled that the agency did not adequately explain its decision to triple the subsidy rate over the EBCP to account for Junyue and two of its affiliates.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case and a countervailing duty case both brought by exporter Celik Halat after the agency accepted submissions made just minutes late. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld the agency's remand findings after Commerce accepted the submissions it initially rejected for being late -- a move dubbed a "draconian penalty" by Stanceu.

The Court of International Trade in a May 26 order denied the U.S.'s stay bid in an antidumping case, citing harm to plaintiff and exporter Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) that could result from the stay. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "a stay is not appropriate in this case," given that BSM has already successfully challenged four bases for the Commerce Department's finding of dumping and a stay "would significantly devalue" the company's investment in the challenge.

Elisa Solomon appeared in a customs case representing the U.S. government, as lead attorney of record in the action brought by importer Mast Industries over the classification of ladies' knitted tops with a built-in shelf bra (see 2205020058). According to her LinkedIn page, Solomon joined DOJ in March after six and half years at Covington (Mast Industries v. U.S., CIT #04-00274).