The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sent a case back to the the D.C. U.S. District Court over whether service was properly provided to the Venezuelan government in a case on the expropriation of a French company. The appellate court said that service was not provided to the Attorney General, as required by Venezuelan law, so the case was sent back so that the French company in question, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe, has a chance to properly effect service (Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, D.C. Cir. #21-7019).
The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a particular market situation existed for the sale of oil country tubular goods in South Korea, lowering the dumping rate for respondent SeAH Steel Corp. from 3.96% to zero percent. Submitting this change to the Court of International Trade via Jan. 24 remand results, Commerce said that although it disagrees with the court that its PMS position isn't backed by enough evidence, it's making the change to comply with court orders (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00150).
The lack of access to business confidential information (BCI) in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation violated wire hanger importer Leco Supply's due process rights, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 brief. Responding to CBP's remand results in which it took another look at its initial finding of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act, Leco said its lack of access to confidential information and the withholding of information not entitled to confidentiality at the administrative level "clearly risked erroneous deviation of Leco's private interests," the brief said. An administrative protective order issued during EAPA investigations would end this concern, the importer told the trade court (Leco Supply v. U.S., CIT #21-00136).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Home Depot U.S.A. launched a challenge at the Court of International Trade over President Donald Trump's expansion of the Section 232 tariffs onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products, such as steel nails. Building on the early success of the PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. U.S. case -- currently under appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- Home Depot said that the action to impose tariffs on the derivative products violated procedural time limits in the Section 232 statute (Home Depot USA v. United States, CIT #22-00014). In April 2021, CIT struck down the Section 232 duties on derivative goods, finding the president violated his statutory authority (see 2104050049).
Steel wheel importer Rimco seeks relief at the Court of International Trade over the Commerce Department's all-others rate in a countervailing duty review by asking the court to order Commerce not to do something that it did not do in the first place, defendant-intervenor Dexstar Wheels said in a Jan. 24 brief. Asking the trade court to toss the case, Dexstar said that Rimco failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted since Commerce did not actually set an all-others rate in the review (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).
The Commerce Department must reconsider its final determination in an antidumping duty investigation into truck and bus tires from China, the Court of International Trade said in a Jan. 24 decision. Judge Timothy Stanceu sent the matter back to Commerce so it could reconsider its decision to deny the two groups of plaintiffs -- led by Guizhou Tyre Co. and Double Coin Holdings -- separate rate status in the investigation. The judge said that the agency's reasoning was "vague and ambiguous" as to whether its inquiry focused on the Chinese government's control of the plaintiffs' export activities.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company wants a stay in two cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit until the appellate court issues its final ruling in a separate antidumping duty action. The separate case concerns whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value. In a December 2021 decision in this case, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit said that no such adjustment is allowed (see 2112100039). Most recently, the appellate court granted an extension of time to file for a full court rehearing of the decision (see 2201030067). Wheatland Tube wants the stay since the case Hyundai Steel concerns "issues virtually identical to those in this case and Hyundai Steel will ultimately dictate the outcome of this appeal." In response, the Federal Circuit granted a separate motion from the Department of Justice to extend its time to file the case's opening brief while the court considers the motion to stay (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1172, #22-1174).