The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a South Korean electricity subsidy is de facto specific on remand in a case at the Court of International Trade concerning the 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China. Judge M. Miller Baker upheld Commerce's decisions to use Maersk price quotes to value ocean freight and value minor fabricated components using Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8431.20.90 data.

Importer Viecura’s argument that there were facts in its classification case that were in dispute, necessitating a trial, “amount[ed] to vague, unsubstantiated claims,” the U.S. said in a reply brief Dec. 5 (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).

In a Dec. 3 reply supporting its motion for judgment, Nura said that the ITC “did not undertake the analysis that defendants claim is correct” to reach its affirmative critical circumstances finding (Nura USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).

A U.S. epoxy resin trade group said Dec. 3 that the Commerce Department was right to find that South Korea’s provision of low-cost off-peak electricity was specific to the country’s chemical industry (Kumho P&B Chemicals v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00143).

As lawsuits seeking refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs at the Court of International Trade continue to mount, lawyers remain uncertain of the refund process that would be followed should the Supreme Court strike down the tariffs, including whether refunds will come via judicial or administrative pathways.

The Court of International Trade's Pay.gov system will undergo maintenance Dec. 13, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET, the court announced. Documents requiring payment with this system can't be filed on CM/ECF during this time.

Importer Sigma Corp. dropped its antidumping duty scope case at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 4, filing a stipulation of dismissal. Sigma initially filed the case in 2019 to contest the Commerce Department's scope ruling on the company's Safelet and Unilet brand fire-protection weld outlets under the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 1901080013). The decision to drop the case comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a jury's determination that Sigma is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its goods were subject to AD (see 2506240037) and a separate scope proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subjecting the goods to AD (Sigma v. United States, CIT # 19-00003).

The U.S. filed a supplemental brief on Dec. 3 urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to affirm a Montana court's decision to transfer a group of tribal members' tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade. The government said the plaintiffs will be able to fully adjudicate their claims at the trade court and that the 9th Circuit can't review the Montana court's transfer order, since it's not a final order nor an "immediately appealable collateral order" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

The Commerce Department erred in not applying adverse facts available to antidumping duty respondent Tenaris Mexico for its failure to properly explain its "nonstandard basket category Threading codes" in the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on oil country tubular goods from Mexico, petitioner U.S. Steel argued in a Dec. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade (United States Steel v. United States, CIT # 25-00243).