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

The Government of Ontario won't participate in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada. Ontario gave notice of its non-participation on July 27 in the case. In March, the Court of International Trade sustained all five of the Commerce Departments positions under contention in the investigation. The consolidated case includes challenges to the investigation from Marmen Energie, which was the mandatory respondent; the governments of Canada, Quebec and Ontario; and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, though now the Government of Ontario has dropped out of the appeal. Though it is out of the appeal, the court refused to drop the government from the case's official caption (The Government of Quebec, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1807).

The U.S. identified an incorrect standard for intervention in opposing exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s motion to intervene in an antidumping proceeding at the Court of International Trade, SeAH argued in a July 29 brief. The exporter argued that it clearly has a right to intervene in the action since a CIT rule says that a party can intervene if it is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute. Given that a federal statute does just that since SeAH was a party to the underlying review in question, SeAH said it can intervene in the case (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138).

The Commerce Department's decision to reject exporter GreenFirst Forest Production's request for a changed circumstances review in a countervailing duty review was "arbitrary and capricious," GreenFirst argued in a brief at the Court of International Trade. The agency based its decision on an inapplicable practice to the case and effectively barred GreenFirst from obtaining a successor-in-interest determination despite its acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's (RYAM's) lumber mills, the brief said (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted a joint motion for stipulated judgment, granting refunds to importer Transpacific Steel for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid in error. The importer was originally granted three exclusions with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading listed in them. After having its resubmitted exclusion requests denied, Transpacific took to the trade court to seek the exclusions and refunds for the Section 232 duties paid. It received just that following a settlement with the U.S. (Transpacific Steel v. United States, CIT #21-00362).

Plaintiffs Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions (see 2206100048). Per a July 29 notice of appeal, the plaintiffs are taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated, and that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00186).

The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Dong-A Steel Co.'s bid to intervene in an antidumping duty case, the U.S. argued in a July 28 brief at the trade court. DOJ argued that Dong-A cannot show that it will suffer injury over the Commerce Department's finding over plaintiff HiSteel Co.'s dumping margin since Dong-A got its own individual dumping margin for its exports that would be unaffected by any decision in HiSteel's case (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).

Ellwood City Forge Company is attempting to relitigate a case without offering anything new through its bid for reconsideration at the Court of International Trade, defendent-intervenor Metalcam said in a July 29 opposition brief (Ellwood City Forge Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00073).

U.S. Steel will appeal a Court of International Trade ruling that found the Commerce Department appropriately determined an Australian exporter didn't reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and was correct not to deduct the amount of antidumping duties paid from the exporter's U.S. price (see 2206100066). U.S. Steel will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff said in a July 27 notice of appeal. The case concerns the administrative review of the AD duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. CIT Judge Richard Eaton said the sale between exporter BlueScope Steel and the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser" (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #20-03815).

Plaintiffs in two Enforce and Protect Act cases, led by Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio in both actions, backed off their opposition to the U.S.'s motions to suspend proceedings in light of CBP's decision to flip its evasion finding on importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply. In the Global Aluminum Distributor case, CBP said it no longer believes the importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through Kingtom (see 2206150047). In Kingtom's two cases, the U.S. requested a stay until the court sorts out the Global Aluminum case. These motions were met with opposition by the plaintiffs until CBP flipped its evasion finding in the Global Aluminum action, prompting the plaintiffs to leave the decision over the stay "to the sound discretion of the Court" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072, -00079).