Plaintiff and antidumping duty respondent GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company will appeal a September Court of International Trade opinion sustaining the Commerce Department's calculation of the separate rate in an antidumping duty administrative review by averaging the separate rates from the previous four administrative reviews, according to a Nov. 23 notice of appeal. The case will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The September decision came in a case involving the 2015-2016 review of the AD duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam in which the court originally rejected Commerce's separate rate calculation (see 2109270035). The court then upheld this calculation after the agency based the rate on more contemporaneous data (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00063).

CBP erred when it found that importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China, the two companies said in a Nov. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Accused of evading the orders via transshipping the grates through South Korea and also misclassifying the entries, Ikadan and Gaosai said that the evasion finding cuts against CBP's own analysis as to the scope of the orders and represents an improper attempt to retroactively apply AD/CV duties (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592)

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

The Court of International Trade issued its final judgment in the Transpacific Steel case that held that the president can impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day time frame for action set out in the statute (see 2107130059). After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned CIT's original decision finding such action illegal, the trade court reversed its decision concurrent with the appellate court's mandate, in a Nov. 22 judgment. Plaintiffs in the case recently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case (see 2111150061) (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's reversion to its initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty in an antidumping duty investigation, both the plaintiff, Borusan Mannemsann, and the antidumping petitioners said. However, the sides were divided over what to do about Commerce's failure to address Borusan's date of sale, with Borusan simply calling for CIT to sustain the results and the petitioners calling for another remand to address the sale date issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).

The Court of International Trade, noting an impasse on a key jurisdictional question in a customs case in a Nov. 22 letter, gave the litigants 30 days to work out a solution on how best to proceed. Acknowledging the legitimacy of both sides' jurisdictional claims, Judge Jane Restani said that if the parties fail to resolve the matter in 30 days, then the plaintiff, FD Sales Company, has 10 days to amend its complaint (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

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

The Commerce Department erred in using the Cohen's d test to identify potential masked dumping in an antidumping investigation, Ashley Furniture argued in a Nov. 19 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Tapping a recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that questioned the validity of the standardized mean difference test, Ashley Furniture argued that Commerce's use of the test in the AD investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea rests on the same faulty assumptions that the Federal Circuit already rejected (Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #32-00283).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a challenge of CBP's alleged failure to issue full Section 301 refunds for lack of jurisdiction since the case was untimely filed, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 19 brief. Plaintiff FD Sales' rebuttal says that the 180-day deadline to file a case that runs from a protest denial does not apply in this case since CBP did not actually deny the protest, but that the protest can be considered denied in part due to CBP's failure to give the full refund. DOJ countered, in the case's most recent brief, that this argument must be rejected since it is "undisputed" that FD Sales filed its summons more than 180 days after the date of the decision (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).