The Commerce Department switched its position on the countervailability of a South Korean sewerage fees program in Feb. 7 remand results, finding that the program is not countervailable. Commerce asked the Court of International Trade for a chance to reconsider the issue itself, ultimately coming back with the position that no benefit was preferred under the sewerage fees program and that the overall subsidy rate for countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel Company should be the de minimis rate of 0.49% (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #21-00012).

There is no exception for business confidential information to the requirement that CBP provide a company subject to an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion investigation access to the evidence on which the agency relies, importer Royal Brush told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 4 opening brief. CBP's denial of Royal Brush's access to the BCI in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation violated its due process rights and created a "flawed process for adjudicating complaints of duty evasion," the brief said (Royal Brush Manufacturing Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

The Court of International Trade remanded on Feb. 8 the Commerce Department's final results of the first administrative review of the countervailing duty order on forged steel fittings from China. In the review, Commerce hit the respondents with an adverse facts available rate over the Chinese government's failure to provide the agency with information over how its Export Buyer's Credit Program works. The court again said that this is an insufficient reason for using AFA since Commerce failed to explain why the information is necessary and why non-use of the program can't be verified by the information submitted by the respondents and their U.S. customers.

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department cannot ignore a Court of International Trade's ruling that the evidence on which the agency relied to issue a scope ruling was not valid in its scope redetermination, the Department of Justice said in a Feb. 4 brief. Replying to defendant-intervenor ASC Engineered Solutions' comments on Commerce's decision to exclude certain flanges from the scope of the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, DOJ said that while it initially agreed with ASC's arguments, it cannot simply disregard the court's decision (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).

The Court of International Trade reported that it settled all issues via mediation in two cases over the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries, but the specifics of mediation were not made known (N. Am. Interpipe, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-03825) (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923).

CBP took exporter LB Wood Cambodia's statements "completely out of context" in an "unceasing attempt to crucify" the company in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation, plaintiff-intervenor Interglobal said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP ascribed "the worst possible motives" to all the parties to the litigation, including LB Wood, and used "its own misstated presumption as grounds for pole-vaulting" to the conclusion that any evidence that undermines the agency's decisions is "inherently suspect," the brief said (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #20-03914).

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

Steel company Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, plaintiff in an antidumping scope challenge, signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results excluding the exporter's dual-stenciled pipe from the scope of the order. In October, the Court of International Trade said that Commerce was wrong to include the dual-stenciled pipe in the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, seeing as there was no International Trade Commission injury determination on line pipe from Thailand (see 2110070029). On remand, Commerce excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the order under respectful protest. Saha Thai said these results comply with the court's orders and should be sustained (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00133).

State marijuana legalization laws do not create an exemption to the federal ban on importation of drug paraphernalia, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 31 filing at the Court of International Trade. Arguing against an importer's motion for judgment in the case, as well as its own cross-motion for judgment in November (see 2111100047), DOJ says an exemption from the federal ban at 21 USC 863 for any "person authorized by local, state, or federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such item" is not triggered by state laws that legalize marijuana across the board (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT #21-00287).