The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 28 order denied a motion to sever filed by exporters led by Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech. Judge Leo Gordon denied the motion without prejudice. The exporters asked to be severed from the joint case on the antidumping duty investigation on steel cut-to-length plate from Germany since its claims have been resolved by the court (see 2309270037). Salzgitter said its case has "no overlap" with the one brought by lead plaintiff AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, noting that disposition of Dillinger's remaining claims will take a significant amount of time (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00158).

Steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania opposed U.S. Steel Corporation's bid to file an amicus curiae brief in a case on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant the importer exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, arguing that there is no role for an amicus at this stage of the case. Telling the court that U.S. Steel is "donning sheep's clothing" in "asking for permission to enter as an amicus," even though the parties "wish to settle their dispute," meaning there is no issue in controversy at play (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).

A defendant in a criminal fraud case shouldn't be allowed to add his criminal attorney to a protective order in a related civil case, DOJ argued in a Sept. 28 motion at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 29 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce must consider its legal basis for finding that South Korea's emissions trading program is countervailable. While the agency said the South Korean government forewent revenue it was otherwise due by fully allocating emissions permits, Barnett noted a standard allocation of the permits may lead to extra government revenue but will not certainly lead to it. The judge added that Commerce failed to support its position that the program is sufficiently limited to an industry.

The Commerce Department has asked for another remand of the results of its antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Indonesia, DOJ said in its Sept. 27 reply comments at the Court of International Trade. After reviewing comments by AD petitioner Brooklyn Bedding, DOJ said that it became clear to Commerce that the record was missing information regarding the "nature and full extent of Zinus Korea’s involvement in the sale of Zinus Indonesia’s mattresses" (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00277).

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 28 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's treatment of "shipping revenue, incentive income, interest income and rental income" in setting the selling, general and administrative expense ratio using Turkish firm Ayes Celikhashir VE CT's financial statements.

The Commerce Department had sufficient domestic industry support to begin and complete an antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, AD petitioners led by U.S. Steel said in a Sept. 22 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Tenaris Bay City, Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).

The Court of International Trade's "unique and unprecedented interpretation" of an "other" provision in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule comes from a "false premise" that would greatly expand its scope throughout the HTS, importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods argued in its Sept. 27 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Seeking its preferred classification of frozen fruit mixtures, the importer said the trade court's reading would also "greatly limit operation of the provisions in [General Rules of Interpretation] 3(b) and (c) which are designed to classify mixtures" (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).

The Commerce Department correctly reconsidered and changed its methodology used to calculate the constructed export price for Korean oil country tubular good exporter Hyundai Steel, the company said in its second set of remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Hyundai said Commerce correctly reversed its decision to base the calculation of constructed export price profit on Kuwaiti sales data of the other mandatory respondent, SeAH Steel, and instead used Hyundai’s own financial statements in its August remand results, where it dropped the company's dumping margin from 19.54% to 9.63% (see 2308160065) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00138).

Consolidated plaintiffs in an antidumping case led by German exporter Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech asked the Court of International Trade to be severed from the joint AD matter given that its claims have been resolved by the court. In a Sept. 26 motion, Salzgitter said its case has "no overlap" with the one brought by lead plaintiff AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke and "it is likely that significant additional time will be required to reach a final judgment regarding the claims raised by Dillinger" (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00158).