Antidumping duty respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes and Pipes Ind. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade over the Commerce Department's denial of part of its responses in an AD administrative review. The company challenges Commerce's rejection of its questionnaire responses for being untimely filed for being nearly two hours late, despite COVID-19-related technical difficulties. The decision was especially egregious since Commerce granted itself lengthy extensions to meet deadlines in the review, the company said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00587).

Goods coming from a non-market economy may be denied first sale valuation due to the market-distorting policies of the non-market economy, the Department of Justice said in a Nov. 19 brief filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Arguing the appellate court should uphold a Court of International Trade ruling questioning the use of first sale on goods from NMEs, DOJ pushed back against plaintiff Meyer Corp.'s contention that NME policies cannot be included in "any non-market influences" -- any of which the U.S. can use to deny an importer the use of first sale. Notably, DOJ did not whole-heartedly embrace the notion that goods coming from an NME are immediately disqualified from receiving first sale valuation (Meyer Corporation, U.S. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

Steel exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision that sustained the Commerce Department's finding that Al Ghurair circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel products from China via the United Arab Emirates. In a Nov. 19 notice of appeal, AGIS said that it will appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, AGIS unsuccessfully argued against Commerce's finding that AGIS's level of investment and production facilities in the UAE are minor and that the value of processing in the UAE represents only a small portion of the value of the merchandise shipped to the U.S. (see 2110050065) (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00142).

The Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision that sustained the International Trade Commission's finding that imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Chile and Mexico didn't harm the domestic industry. In a Nov. 19 notice of appeal, the subgroup said that it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The decision concerned the selection of data and the ITC's methodological choices for selecting pricing product data or bid data (see 2110050071) (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00090).

The Government of Argentina, along with LDC Argentina, will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision that found that the Commerce Department had sufficient evidence in its changed circumstances review to support its finding that the situation had not changed regarding countervailable subsidies for Argentina's biodiesel industry. In two notices of appeal, both plaintiffs said they will now take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, the court also upheld Commerce's decision to originally find changed circumstances but later switch back to a finding of no changed circumstances, leading to a higher CVD rate (see 2109210046) (Government of Argentina v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-00119).

The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a Court of International Trade case over steel exporter Mirror Metals' denied Section 232 exclusion requests, finding that it is appropriate to reconsider the exclusion denials. The case concerns 45 exclusion requests for flat-rolled stainless steel products that are supposedly used in large-scale architectural projects. The requests saw objections from three domestic manufacturers, leading to Commerce denying all 45 exclusion bids. The leading reason for the denials given by Commerce was the availability of the domestic capacity to make the products in question (Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00144).

That an antidumping review respondent lied in its advertisements about what its goods were made of does not warrant the application of adverse facts available, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 18 decision. Judge Miller Baker said that while the respondent's advertising in the U.S. is a "complete fraud from bark to core," the Commerce Department must derive the company's dumping rate from its actual costs. The judge also held that Commerce does not have the jurisdiction to "police false advertising violations" under its antidumping laws.

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

The Commerce Department's surrogate financial ratio calculation in an antidumping duty case, while better explained, is not the most accurate calculation and thus does not comply with the law or the Court of International Trade's order, plaintiff Ancientree Cabinet Co. argued in a Nov. 12 brief at CIT. Further, the particular methodology Commerce used also doesn't jibe with the agency's past methodology and reasoning in other AD reviews, the brief said (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-00114).

U.S. Steel Corporation should not be allowed to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial case because it has already been denied this right three other times and has no interest that can support intervention, Russian steelmaker NLMK argued in a Nov. 17 brief to the Court of International Trade. The critical flaw in U.S. Steel's intervention bid is that case is about the Commerce Department's action and not about U.S. Steel, NMLK said (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).