The Commerce Department unlawfully used "zeroing" in calculating respondent YDD Corporation's antidumping margin in the AD investigation on ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan, YDD argued in a Nov. 7 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The respondent said Commerce has a "long-established practice of not using zeroing," yet the agency "departed from this practice" when calculating the company's AD rate "without providing any explanation for this change in practice" (YDD Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00100).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 7 granted importer Danfoss' motion to reopen its case seeking exclusions from Section 301 China tariffs on its scroll compressors and scroll-type compressors after the court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Judge Claire Kelly vacated the dismissal and said the case will remain on the customs case management calendar until Oct. 31, 2026 (Danfoss LLC v. United States, CIT # 23-00214).

Exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies on Nov. 7 said it would appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision dismissing the company's case against the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2509080047). The trade court said Pipe & Piling failed to notify the other interested parties of its lawsuit as required by the USMCA, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(3)(B), adding that this requirement is a jurisdictional one (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, Slip Op. 25-119, CIT # 24-00211).

In a reply to Korean steel exporter Hyundai, steel petitioner Nucor Corp. said Oct. 24 that the Commerce Department, again, was right to base its determination of the de facto specificity of South Korea’s discounted off-peak electricity prices on the fact that three unrelated industries received a large portion of the subsidy (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00190).

Exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret moved the Court of International Trade on Nov. 6 for a preliminary injunction in its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey. The motion only noted it had the partial consent from the government, since DOJ can't consult with the Commerce Department on the motion until the federal government reopens. Kaptan filed its case last month to contest Commerce's selection of a benchmark to value a subsidized lease provided to Kaptan's affiliate, Nur Gemicilik, in the review (see 2510140030) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 25-00225).

The Commerce Department erred in backing off its use of the Cohen's d test to identify targeted dumping in the middle of an antidumping duty review and introducing a new "two-percent threshold," review respondent Tubos de Acero de Mexico (TAMSA) argued in a Nov. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. TAMSA said that while Commerce said it was backing off the d test due to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejecting the agency's use of the test, the agency didn't have to make a change, since CAFC's decision wasn't "final and conclusive" (Tubos de Acero de Mexico v. United States, CIT # 25-00221).

A group of solar cell importers and exporters asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to consolidate its appeal of a Court of International ruling vacating the Commerce Department's 2022-2024 duty pause on the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam with the government's appeal of the same order (Auxin Solar v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2120).

Importer Danfoss on Nov. 6 moved the Court of International Trade to reopen its case on whether its scroll compressors and scroll-type compressors are exempt from Section 301 duties on China. The trade court dismissed the case on Nov. 4 for lack of prosecution (see 2511050053) (Danfoss LLC v. United States, CIT # 23-00214).

Three new lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 6 on the legality of President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as his authority to impose tariffs, on the day after the Supreme Court appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. One suit was filed by three importers, led by Del Monte Fresh Produce and represented by customs lawyer Myron Barlow; another was filed by importer Turn5, represented by Crowell & Moring; and a third was filed by importer Netuno USA by trade lawyer Vinicius Adam (Del Monte Fresh Produce v. United States, CIT # 25-00244) (Netuno USA v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00245) (Turn5 v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 25-00246).

The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Nov. 3 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):