Nucor Corporation says the Commerce Department should have added countervailing duties in an administrative review for the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost for certain tariff classes, instead of finding the provision of electricity conferred a "non-measurable benefit." In its March 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade, Nucor took particular issue with Commerce's decision to run a "tier three" analysis into the alleged benefit (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00050).
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps should not be allowed to amend its complaint since the case cannot be amended to claim jurisdiction over a denied protest after the 180-day window to file a challenge has lapsed, the Justice Department said in a March 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. also contested Dr. Bronner's motion since it sought to only amend the complaint and not the summons (All One God Faith v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-00164).
The Commerce Department's decision to deem countervailable exporter Dongbu Steel's debt-for-equity swaps was unsupported, and violated the agency's own standard practice of not reexamining subsidy programs that were previously found non-countervailable without any new information, Dongbu Steel said in a March 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00047).
Two chainsaw chain and blade importers, TriLink Saw Chain and TriLink Global, agreed to pay $525,000 to settle allegations that the companies misclassified their imports, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa said. The U.S. alleged that the importers purposely classified their chain saw chains and blades from September 2018 through June 2019 under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading to avoid paying Section 301 China tariffs -- a violation of the False Claims Act.
The Commerce Department ignored the Court of International Trade's and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's instructions when it continued to rely on the "likely selling price" of non-prime goods to set rates in an antidumping duty case, exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke said in a March 15 brief responding to Commerce's remand results. Dillinger says the agency continued to use facts otherwise available even after the trade court ruled it unsupported, arguing Commerce must instead use the company's actual data (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158).
Mediation in an antidumping duty case will not result in a quicker resolution nor would it help in reaching a resolution, DOJ said in a March 16 motion opposing Japanese exporter Nagase & Co.'s bid for court-annexed mediation. DOJ said it looked at the issues of the case and decided not to request a voluntary remand. As such, it intends to fight Nagase's characterization of the issues, meaning the best way to handle the case will be to "simply brief and decide the claims on their merits," the U.S. said (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
Antidumping duty respondents Best Mattresses International Company's and Rose Lion Furniture Company's challenge of the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis should be tossed since the DPA did not injure the plaintiffs, DOJ said in a March 11 brief at the Court of International Trade. Since the DPA ultimately found that no "masked" dumping was occurring, the use of the analysis, which is based on a statistical test called into question by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year, did not give Best Mattresses and Rose Lion any standing to challenge it, the U.S. argued (Best Mattresses International Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00281).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied on March 16 U.S. pipe maker Welspun Tubular's motion for rehearing in a case on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an antidumping duty proceeding. The appellate court issued a two-page order denying the en banc rehearing motion without a further explanation (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
DOJ joined a motion to dismiss a countervailing duty case originally filed by CVD petitioner Dextar Wheels arguing that the Court of International Trade cannot order the Commerce Department to correct something it did not do in the first place. Filing its own motion to dismiss on March 15, DOJ said that the plaintiff, steel wheel importer Rimco, failed to make a claim on which relief can be granted since Commerce did not even establish an all-others rate in a CVD review -- precisely what Rimco is challenging (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).