The Court of International Trade should not stay judgment of its decision rejecting Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum "derivatives" since plaintiffs in a separate but relevant case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have a "significant probability" to succeed, a motion opposing the stay said. Plaintiffs Oman Fasteners and Huttig Building Products filed their opposition on Aug. 30 after the Justice Department sought the stay once the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. U.S. case, permitting the president to take Section 232 tariff actions beyond procedural deadlines (Oman Fasteners, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00037).

The Court of International Trade remanded certain aspects of the results of a less-than-fair-value investigation into corrosion-resistant steel products from Taiwan to the Commerce Department concurrent with a mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a Sept. 1 order. Having reversed two of CIT's findings in the case, the Federal Circuit mandate instructs Commerce to reconsider its decision to collapse the two mandatory respondents and an affiliate in the investigation and to use facts otherwise available with an adverse inference as to the reporting of yield strength by one of the respondents.

The Commerce Department should have picked Indonesia over India when selecting a surrogate country in an antidumping duty administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, Catfish Farmers of America said in an Aug. 30 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Commerce picked India in spite of the fact that Indonesia "produces identical and comparable merchandise that more closely represents the subject merchandise than does India, Indonesia produces and exports far greater quantities than India, and the Indonesian data on the record are superior to the Indian data," the complaint said (Catfish Farmers of Ameirca, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00380).

The Commerce Department's arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that say that pencil importer Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies in an antidumping duty review mistake the agency's regulatory requirements, Prime Time said in an Aug. 26 reply brief. Having already requested certain "gap-filling" information that only Commerce could provide five other times in the review, Prime Time did not need to request a sixth time to have argued for a separate rate in the review, the brief said.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in an Aug. 31 opinion that the Commerce Department properly rejected cold-drawn mechanical tubing exporter Goodluck India's questionnaire corrections in an antidumping investigation. Reversing a Court of International Trade's decision, a three-judge panel said that Goodluck's corrections weren't "minor." The reversal led to a 33.8% dumping margin for Goodluck, which had been assigned a zero percent rate following the CIT decision.

An extension of the time of service in a penalty action against the owner and director of importer Atria, Kevin Ho, should not be granted, counsel for Ho argued in an Aug. 25 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, also pushing for the case to be dismissed. The U.S. served Ho's counsel with the wrong summons and complaint and cannot prove excusable neglect in its service, Ho argued (United States v. Chu-Chiang "Kevin" Ho, et al., CIT #19-00038).

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

The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping case to the Commerce Department after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's initial ruling in an Aug. 26 order. The Federal Circuit had on July 20 backed Commerce's initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty, finding that the adjustment was supported by substantial evidence (see 2107200038). CIT erred in leading Commerce to adjust the post-sale price by the entirety of the penalty cost since the customer was not aware of the methodology by which the amount of the penalty was to be determined. Commerce has 45 days to file the remand, and any objections can be filed 20 days after the redetermination submission (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00056).

The Commerce Department will reconsider its application of facts available in a countervailing duty review pursuant to its own voluntary remand request, the Court of International Trade ordered in an Aug. 27 decision. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the remand was warranted since it will allow Commerce the opportunity to "cure its own mistakes and reconsider the substantive issues," raised by plaintiff and respondent Hyundai Steel Company.

The Commerce Department stuck with its application of facts available in remand results filed at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 25 despite a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision finding that such reliance on the current data was inappropriate. Seeing as no other data was available than respondent Dillinger France's books and records, Commerce said it had to rely on them despite their deficiencies (Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, CIT #17-00159).