Steel company NLMK Pennsylvania has "no basis" to argue that the Court of International Trade should take over the Section 232 tariff exclusion process and simply award the importer hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the trade court. Looking to rebut NLMK's arguments seeking to discredit the Commerce Department's denials of NLMK's 58 Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. said that the relief that the steel company seeks is "clear overreach" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Sept. 23 in a case brought by Vicentin on the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Argentina. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit held that tradeable tax credits fall within the regulatory definition of a "price adjustment," meaning the Commerce Department properly deducted the credits from respondent LDC Argentina's export price (see 2208020052). The court said that the agency's use of an international market price for soybeans in its constructed value calculation for biodiesel does not count as a double remedy, even though the U.S. imposed countervailing duties on Argentine soybeans (Vicentin v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).
The Commerce Department must provide further explanation for, and if needed, reconsider its finding as to whether the "likely selling price" of non-prime plate set in antidumping respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books is the best available information for evaluating the cost of production, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 23 opinion. Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in a "parallel matter" instructing Commerce to find the actual cost of production for prime and non-prime cut-to-length plate, Judge Leo Gordon sent back Commerce's reliance on Dillinger's "likely selling price" of non-prime plate.
The Commerce Department properly hit antidumping respondent Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial with total adverse facts available for its failure to report all of its factors of production data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Sept. 23 opinion. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman and Kara Stoll ruled that the CONNUM-specific reporting requirement is an interpretive rule and not a legislative one requiring a notice-and-comment period, and found Pioneer failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by not maintaining adequate records and not developing a proper reporting methodology.
The Commerce Department migrated its review of whether Russia is a market economy from one antidumping investigation to another, Commerce said in a Sept. 19 notice. Commerce directed parties that had already made comments on the changed circumstances review in the original AD investigation to resubmit their comments and factual information for consideration to the new AD duty investigation. These entities, which include EuroChem Switzerland, Russia's Ministry of Economic Development, CF Industries Nitrogen and Wiley Rein, have until Sept. 28 to submit their comments.
No trade-related lawsuits have been filed since Sept. 21 at the Court of International Trade.
Personal protective equipment manufacturer defendants, led by Smart Glove Holdings, failed to disclose they were under investigation by CBP for using forced labor, leading to over $68.5 million in damages to protective equipment supplier Airboss Defense Group (ADG), ADG said in a Sept. 19 complaint. Filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ADG claimed that had it known about this investigation, it would not have agreed to source its gloves from Smart Glove and would have avoided the millions in charges, logistics costs and storage fees it incurred due to the imports being detained under a withhold release order (Airboss Defense Group v. Smart Glove Holdings, C.D. Calif. #2:22-06727).
Mandatory antidumping respondent Dong-A Steel Co. can intervene in a challenge to an antidumping review brought by the review's other mandatory respondent HiSteel Co., the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 22 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann said that Dong-A has "piggyback standing" to intervene since it and HiSteel seek the same relief, and that the exporter can intervene "as of right" since it is "an interested party who was a party to the proceeding."
Trade Court Bucks Bid for Stay in CVD Review, Cites Lack of 'Talismanic Formula' for Ruling on Stays
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 22 opinion denied plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's motion to stay its countervailing duty review challenge pending resolution of a case over the previous review of the same CVD order. Judge Gary Katzmann said the stay would not promote judicial economy since the pending cases are before CIT and not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and that Kaptan has not put forth any "pressing need" for a stay. The judge commented on the lack of any "talismanic formula" for finding when a stay motion should be granted and the need to weigh the various conditions at play.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: