The Commerce Department "lawfully and reasonably" found that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) -- the U.S. affiliate for BlueScope Steel -- for antidumping duties on the relevant imports, the U.S. argued in a June 7 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Contrary to plaintiff U.S. Steel's contention, Commerce properly concluded that AIS's pricing arrangement wasn't evidence of reimbursement for the duties because the agency no longer deducts from U.S. price any indirect reimbursement of antidumping duties, the brief said (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #21-00528).

The Court of International Trade in a June 1 opinion made public June 9 granted the U.S.' motion to dismiss a case seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions brought by exporter Borusan Mannesmann and importer Gulf Coast Express Pipeline. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction since the subject entries are unliquidated. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that CBP's decision not to issue refunds before liquidation constitutes a protestable decision.

The Court of International Trade, in three related opinions, rejected reconsideration bids from a series of domestic manufacturers and producers of a wide range of goods covered by antidumping duty orders for the court to vacate or modify certain claims as being time barred. The reconsideration motions concern whether certain claims seeking payouts of delinquency interest under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 were timely filed. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the plaintiffs "have not put forth a valid reason why the court should vacate or modify the decision."

The Court of International Trade in a June 9 opinion denied Indian exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited's bid for injunctive relief against paying cash deposits from a countervailing duty investigation and liquidation. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that the plaintiff failed to show that it would likely face harm without the preliminary injunction since the company did not show that future refunds of excess cash deposits would be an "inadequate remedy." As for the injunction on liquidation, the court said that there's no draft order in "satisfactory form" which could allow the court to issue the standard injunction against liquidation. However, Stanceu gave the plaintiff 30 days to renew the injunction bid.

The Court of International Trade in a June 7 order granted the U.S.'s bid for a stay in an Enforce and Protect Act case, halting proceedings until the Commerce Department issues its final determination in the relevant covered merchandise referral matter. The case concerns Fedmet Resources' challenge of a 2020 EAPA determination, in which CBP found that Fedmet had evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) bricks from China. On April 27, CBP requested a stay to seek a covered merchandise referral from Commerce because it says that it's unable to determine whether the bricks it tested are covered merchandise (see 2204270072) (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT #21-00248).

Attorneys for RH Peterson asked the Court of International Trade to set aside a dismissal entered by the court clerk on June 3, which cited "lack of prosecution" as a reason for dismissal following a missed filing deadline by the importer. RH Peterson's attorneys said that they believed the filing deadline to avoid the dismissal was at the end of June, according to a June 6 motion to reinstate the case (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department erred by finding that South Korea's provision of electricity below cost "conferred a non-measurable benefit," countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a June 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nucor railed against the "evidentiary flaws" Commerce relied on from cost data from South Korea's sole supplier of electricity, the Korean Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), but said that even using this data, it's clear that a benefit was conferred to the mandatory respondents (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).

In a series of three opinions, the Court of International Trade denied domestic honey, crawfish, garlic and mushroom producers' bids for reconsideration of the court's past ruling dismissing some of their claims as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The cases, led by Adee Honey Farms, Hilex Poly and American Drew, sought court orders to get CBP to distribute delinquency interest that should be paid to affected domestic producers under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. Previously, Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the only timely claims were the ones relating to the application of the Final Rule to the plaintiffs' individual CDSOA distributions happening in the two years before their implementing their actions. In the June 8 opinions, Stanceu held that no "valid reason" was put forth as to why the court should vacate or modify the decisions to dismiss the untimely claims.

The Commerce Department altered the basis for its use of adverse facts available on remand at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping case after the court said that antidumping respondent Dalian Meisen Woodworking's false advertisements cannot be used as grounds for AFA. Submitting its remand results on June 6, Commerce said that after issuing a host of new questionnaires to Meisen, including a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification, it changed its bases for AFA, now basing it on the respondent's failure to provide "critical information" in the questionnaire and all of its U.S. affiliates (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00109).