Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood City Forge Co., aren't seeking to relitigate the issue of whether the Commerce Department should have conducted on-site verification during its administrative review but merely trying to frame a newly available piece of evidence, the plaintiffs argued in an Aug. 25 brief. Responding to arguments from the U.S. and exporter Metalcam, the plaintiffs said it's the U.S. and Metalcam that are seeking to relitigate issues, particularly the point of whether the plaintiffs raised the issue administratively (Ellwood City Forge v. United States, CIT #21-00073).

The Department of Commerce routinely made minimal effort to verify claims that imported specialty steel products easily could be supplied by domestic producers and therefore incorrectly denied product exclusions from Section 232 steel tariffs, LE Commodities said in an Aug. 24 complaint to the Court of International Trade (LE Commodities, LLC v. United States, CIT # 22-00245)

The Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 25 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 29 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to reverse its finding that a particular market situation existed for an input of oil country tubular goods in South Korea. The court previously remanded the PMS determination in the 2017-18 administrative review of the AD order on OCTG as being unsupported by substantial evidence. The agency then flipped its finding, prompting Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves to sustain the remand results. Previously, the judge also sent back Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping, but since respondent SeAH Steel Corp. was given a de minimis dumping margin, the issue was moot.

The Court of International Trade failed to recognize that key facts in a customs fraud case are not in dispute, but if it had, the court "would likely have" come to a different conclusion over when the statute of limitations had run out for the U.S. to bring its case, defendants Greenlight Organic and Parambir Singh Aulakh argued. Filing a motion for rehearing Aug. 25, the defendants said the trade court committed an error when finding that a piece of evidence has to establish fraud for the statute of limitations to begin to run and not merely give allegations of misconduct to the government (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT #17-00031).

The Commerce Department was right to exclude dual-stenciled standard pipe and line pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 25 opinion. Upholding Commerce's remand results in a scope challenge, Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the initial AD investigation was commenced over 40 years ago and no injury finding was made for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Previously, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded Commerce's particular market situation finding, reallocation of respondent NEXTEEL's reported costs for non-prime products for an allocation based on actual costs, adjustment to NEXTEEL' production line suspension costs, calculation of respondent SeAH Steel Co.'s affiliated seller's further manufacturing cost and inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses in its general and administrative expense ratio.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a recent and highly anticipated opinion ruled that CBP cannot consider a country's non-market economy status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). The case, brought by importer Meyer Corp., now heads back to the Court of International Trade, which will hear arguments over how to appraise cookware imported by Meyer. John Peterson, counsel for Meyer, told Trade Law Daily that he is considering two options when the case gets back to the trade court: seek a retrial or mediation.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 text-only order granted a partial consent motion to consolidate two cases, one of which is a consolidated action brought by two importers, challenging a CBP Enforce and Protect Act investigation. The cases concern CBP's finding that American Pacific Plywood, Far East American, Liberty Woods International and InterGlobal Forest evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by transshipping the goods through Vietnam. The complaints include counts against CBP's alleged due process violations and determination that all the imports were covered merchandise (see 2207200031). Earlier in August, the court consolidated the Far East and American Pacific Plywood cases. The U.S. then moved to consolidate the Far East and InterGlobal cases, arguing that it would promote judicial efficiency (see 2208230026). The cases were assigned to Judge Mark Barnett (Far East American v. U.S., CIT #22-00213).

The Court of International Trade denied plaintiff Nucor's motion for a stay in a countervailing duty case, finding that the steel producer's arguments were "not persuasive." Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the stay in an Aug. 23 order, declaring a stay pending resolution of another action over the same countervailing duty review "would delay the just and speedy resolution of this litigation" (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).