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

Judge Gary Katzmann of the Court of International Trade approved a May 14 motion by TR International Trading Company to make its ongoing case a test case and suspend two similar cases under the proceeding (Thatcher Company v. United States, CIT No. 20-00067, 21-cv-00357).

The Canadian Government, along with its other plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, will appeal a March Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's positions on all five issues under contention in a dispute involving wind towers from Canada. According to the May 16 notice of appeal, the Canadian Government, along with the Government of Quebec, Marmen Inc., Marmen Energie and Marmen Energy Co., will take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (The Government of Quebec v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00168).

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).