U.S. Steel was again denied the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge at the Court of International Trade, with the court holding that the Pennsylvania steel company did not have a legally protectable interest in the case. According to the Dec. 3 opinion, U.S. Steel cannot intervene in the case since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome. Judge Claire Kelly said that any harm that U.S. Steel would experience as a result of the court granting a Section 232 exclusion would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products.
Section 1581(i) Jurisdiction Stands in Liquidation Instruction Challenge, Solar Cell Importer Argues
The Department of Justice's motion to dismiss a challenge to the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions to CBP over MS Solar's solar panels is "nothing more than an effort to avoid judicial scrutiny of its arbitrary and unreasonable actions," MS Solar said in a Nov. 23 brief to the Court of International Trade. The solar panel importer urged the court to accept jurisdiction under the court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction provision (MS Solar Investments, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00303).
The Commerce Department's finding that the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy is de facto specific to Spanish olive growers and thus countervailable is not backed by substantial evidence, plaintiffs in a case challenging this contention said in Dec. 3 comments submitted to the Court of International Trade. In its bid to corroborate this de facto specificity finding, Commerce actually shows the "proportionate nature of the programs," undermining the de facto finding, the comments on Commerce's remand results said (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa et al v. United States, CIT #18-00195).
The Commerce Department has given no reason why South Korean steel company SeAH Steel Corp. should be penalized via a delayed remand submission because "Commerce has chosen to procrastinate" on a delayed remand in another case, SeAH told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 2 brief (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00150).
The International Trade Commission should revoke the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Canada, China, India and Oman due to the U.S. industry already running at full capacity and undertaking market distorting practices, PET resin consumers will tell the ITC during a sunset review of the orders. The PET resin consumers, including members of the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), note the inflationary effect the AD/CVD orders on PET resin have on their prices and mark the orders as one of the factors contributing to unsustainable price hikes amid shortages in one of bottled water's essential inputs.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
There are no substantive differences between two cases challenging antidumping duty investigations into goods from India, one of which was granted a voluntary remand, so the Court of International Trade should grant a remand for the other, the plaintiffs for that case argued in a Dec. 1 brief. Both cases concern the lack of verification due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and CIT should allow Commerce to review whether it was appropriate to rely on supplemental questionnaire responses instead of on-site verification (Bonney Forge Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03837).
The Commerce Department properly gave a non-mandatory respondent a non-de minimis countervailing duty rate in a CVD administrative review despite the fact that both of the actual mandatory respondents received de minimis rates, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 2 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly held that the "expected method" for calculating duties for non-mandatory respondents only applies in the antidumping duty context, and not to CV duty proceedings.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department's refusal to calculate a non-adverse facts available rate for all other respondents in a countervailing duty review is not in accordance with the law, steel wheel importer Rimco said in its Nov. 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The agency's move of averaging the AFA rates to come up with a 388.1% all-others rate in the review is not backed by substantial evidence and cuts against a past CIT ruling, Rimco said (Rimco, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00588).