Steel nails imported after 12:01 a.m. Feb. 8, 2020 by Hilti that remain unliquidated will remain unliquidated, per a June 30 order from the Court of International Trade. Hilti filed the consent motion to enjoin the liquidation June 29, claiming that it's likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Hilti argued that because the court ruled that the expansion of Section 232 tariffs to cover steel and aluminum “derivatives” violated statutory time limits in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., it should succeed in its case since it shares the “same cause of action” as PrimeSource (see 2106290041). The entries will remain liquidated until the “final resolution of the merits of this case, including through any appellate process” (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

The Commerce Department's decision to swap the basis for its total adverse facts available determination in an antidumping administrative review is backed by substantial evidence and in line with Court of International Trade remand orders, the Department of Justice said in June 30 comments on the remand results. After Judge M. Miller Baker found that Commerce improperly relied on two issues with plaintiff Hung Vuong Group's data submitted to the agency to determine AFA, Commerce flipped to two other elements of HVG's data to make the same determination (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Department of Justice invoked a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in an antidumping case involving a country-wide rate for a non-market economy, according to a June 28 notice of supplemental authority in the Court of International Trade. In the case, the China Manufacturers Alliance and Shanghai Huayi Group Corporation said that Commerce determined a country-wide antidumping rate without providing the legal basis for doing so in an antidumping investigation of truck and bus tires from China (Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00031). But in China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States, decided on June 10, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can assign a China-wide rate “by the very means in which Commerce did in this investigation,” DOJ said. The decision showed that Commerce's China-wide rate is an individually investigated rate (see 2106100044).

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

Hilti, Inc., with consent from the Department of Justice, moved for the Court of International Trade to stop liquidation of its steel nail entries pending a result in its challenge of the expansion of Section 232 tariffs onto steel “derivatives,” in a June 29 filing. The importer wants the court to bar CBP from liquidating its steel nails entries subject to the 25% steel derivatives tariffs for entries made after 12:01 am Feb. 8, 2020. Hilti conferred with Ann Motto of DOJ, who consented to the suspension of liquidation, without addressing the likelihood of success in the case, the company said (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

Citgo Petroleum filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking to stop international trading company Teknik Trading from auctioning off its goods that are “stranded” because Citgo's parent company is subject to U.S. sanctions. According to a June 25 complaint, Citgo contracted Teknik to store then deliver over $11 million worth of goods intended for Citgo's parent company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA). Once PdVSA was sanctioned by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, the goods were frozen (Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Teknik Trading Inc., S.D. Tex #4:21-02086).

The petitioner in an antidumping case, Catfish Farmers of America, is incorrect in its assessment that the Commerce Department erred by departing from the "expected method" for calculating the antidumping duty rate for non-individually reviewed "separate rate" respondents in an administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Department of Justice said. Responding to the petitioner in June 28 comments on the second remand results at the Court of International Trade, DOJ, along with comments from the plaintiffs led by GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, said Commerce properly adhered to court orders by setting a lower rate for the exporters (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, et al., v. United States, CIT #21-00063).

Uttam Galva Steels, mandatory respondent in a countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India, will appeal an April 29 Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available to determine its countervailing duty rate, according to its June 25 notice of appeal. Judge Leo Gordon said the use of AFA for Uttam Galva and not the other mandatory respondent in the review was justified since Uttam Galva failed to provide information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry (see 2104300045). Uttam Galva was saddled with a 588.42% CVD rate (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, CIT #19-00044).

The Department of Justice seeks a stay from the Court of International Trade of the liquidation of PrimeSource's entries pending DOJ's appeal of CIT's decision that struck down President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum “derivatives,” it said in a June 9 motion for partial stay of judgment.

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