The Court of International Trade vacated a Commerce Department regulation establishing expedited reviews for countervailing duty investigations in an Aug. 18 opinion. Chief Judge Mark Barnett, after issuing three other opinions in the case, upheld Commerce's finding that it couldn't find any alternative statutory basis on which to find that the regulation can exist. Barnett also nixed the expedited CVD reviews provided to some Canadian companies relating to the CVD order on certain softwood lumber from Canada. In doing so, Barnett ruled that companies deemed excluded from the CVD order due to the expedited reviews shall prospectively be reinstated as subject to it. Commerce shall also impose a cash deposit requirement based on the all-others rate from the investigation or the company-specific rate determined in the most recently completed administrative review in which the company was reviewed, Barnett said.
Court of International Trade activity
The Court of International Trade sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany in two opinions. Judge Leo Gordon again remanded Commerce's application of the major input rule, treatment of certain general and administrative expenses and the application of adverse facts available. The judge did, however, sustain Commerce's differential pricing analysis and adjustment of interest expense to include a portion of respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's parent holding company's interest expense.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade extended to Oct. 4 from Sept. 2 the preliminary injunction preventing the liquidation of unliquidated customs entries with Section 301 lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure, said an order signed late Aug. 16 by Judges Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. The judges also extended to Sept. 3 from Aug. 20 the deadline for CBP to create a repository for the subject customs entries. It’s the court's third deadline extension since Kelly and Choe-Groves ordered CBP to establish the repository in a July 6 preliminary injunction order.
The U.S.' voluntary remand request in two Section 232 exclusion cases should be denied in its current form since the government's delayed, tranched solution is "unconscionable," steel importers Allegheny Technologies Inc. and California Steel Industries argued in an Aug. 16 reply brief. Given that Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests are supposed to be decided within 106 days, the Commerce Department's proposed nine to 12 month schedule to reconsider CSI's exclusion requests is "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale, CSI argued (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923)(California Steel Industries, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00015).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department does not need to "poll the industry" to find out if over half of the domestic industry supports an antidumping or countervailing duty petition, Judge Leo Gordon of the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 16 letter. Responding to consolidated plaintiff M S International's request for a remand directing Commerce to poll the industry or "collect additional information establishing whether there was industry support" for the contested AD/CVD petition, Gordon said this request stemmed from a misunderstanding of the law (Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00127).
Target's attempt to fight off the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss a customs case at the Court of International Trade falls flat, DOJ argued in an Aug. 13 reply brief. Following practices codified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, CIT properly ordered the reliquidation of improperly liquidated ironing tables from China, DOJ said, backing the court's authority to do so (Target Corp. v. U.S., CIT #21-00162).
Antidumping petitioner U.S. Steel Corporation and the two mandatory respondents in the contested antidumping duty review, SeAH Steel Co. and NEXTEEL Co., submitted their comments on the Commerce Department's remand results at the Court of International Trade. U.S. Steel spoke out against Commerce's flip on its finding of a particular market situation for South Korean steel while the respondents argued against the agency's reallocation of suspended product line and inventory valuation losses to general and administrative expenses and Commerce's decision to deduct a portion of SeAH's G&A expenses of a U.S. affiliate for further manufacturing costs (SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).
The Commerce Department properly calculated antidumping duty review mandatory respondent LG Chem's cost of production (COP) when calculating constructed price, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 13 opinion. In a case over the antidumping duty investigation into acetone from South Korea, Judge M. Miller Baker held that Commerce's decision to spurn LG Chem's method for calculating the cost of the materials for making acetone in favor of the method used by the other mandatory respondent, Kumho P&B Chemical, was legal. This decision led to a higher antidumping rate for LG Chem in the investigation's final determination, sticking the exporter with a 25.05% rate. Baker also found that Commerce's rejection of certain of LG Chem's factual submissions was "harmless" and therefore permitted.