Jacob Kopnick

Plaintiff Nucor Corp. ignored the "thorough explanation" that the Commerce Department gave in its remand results showing how the agency conducted its less-than-adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis regarding the electricity market in South Korea, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 reply brief. Further backing its remand at the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice argued that Commerce's remand complies with the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by properly analyzing whether the Korean Electricity Corp. (KEPCO) recovered its costs of production plus a profit (POSCO, et al. v. United States, CIT #17-00137).

The Commerce Department dropped a particular market situation adjustment from a sales-below-cost test in an antidumping duty investigation, in its remand results filed at the Court of International Trade, concurrent with a court decision instructing it to do so. The agency maintains that a PMS existed for South Korean steel inputs but concedes that the court's interpretation of the law does not permit an adjustment to the cost of production for the PMS in the sales-below-cost test. The remand rate dropped for mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel Co. from 30.85% to 12.92% and for non-examined respondent SeAH Steel Corp. from 19.28% to 9.99% (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

SMA Surfaces, Inc., formerly known as Polarstone US, and Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. each filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging two different scope rulings on antidumping and countervailing duty orders. SMA challenged the Commerce Department's decision to not exclude three specific surface products from the AD/CVD orders on quartz surface products from China, while Cheng Shin appealed Commerce's decision to not exclude the company's light-truck spare tire models from the less-than-fair-value investigation into passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (SMA Surfaces, Inc. (F/K/A Polarstone US) v. U.S., CIT #21-00399) (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

The Commerce Department continued to apply adverse facts available relating to the agency's inability to verify two mandatory respondents' non-use of China's Export Buyers Credit Program in a countervailing duty case, despite lengthy remand instructions from the Court of International Trade. Answering a series of nine questions from Judge Timothy Reif, Commerce thoroughly explained why it continues to apply AFA on this critical issue absent further collaboration with the Chinese government, in its remand results. Likening the saga over the EBCP in the court to the film Groundhog Day, Reif sought an explanation from Commerce that would firmly answer the question of whether AFA was legitimately applied on the issue (Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00032).

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' Court of International Trade case challenging CBP's antidumping and countervailing duty evasion finding should continue, even though the relevant entries have liquidated, because the lawsuit was properly filed under Section 1581(c), the company said in a Sept. 1 reply brief. Responding to a partial motion to dismiss from the Department of Justice, Dr. Bronner's said that since the Enforce and Protect Act, under which the evasion finding was made, is codified under 19 USC 1517, the proper jurisdiction for its challenge of an EAPA investigation is Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

The Justice Department should not be permitted an extension of time to respond to a complaint and file the administrative record in a Court of International Trade challenge of Commerce Department assessment instructions issued for hot-rolled steel imported by Optima Steel International, the steel distributor said in a Sept. 7 filing, adding it is "extremely frustrated" with another request for delay. The defendant's request should be denied since it "requests far too much time to accomplish the tasks identified, and cites to no good cause other than a claim of internal deliberations that might yield a resolution," the brief said. Also, there's no reason DOJ can't answer the complaint and file the administrative record while the government discusses how to resolve the issues raised in the litigation, Optima argued. "The two are not mutually exclusive," it said (Optima Steel Internaitonal, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate Sept. 7 in a case in which it dismissed the proceedings due to a lack of jurisdiction. In its July 14 opinion, the Federal Circuit said that the Court of International Trade was correct in dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2107140028). The plaintiff, TR International Trading Co., erred when it filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction, since it could have challenged a denied protest under Section 1581(a) or a scope ruling under Section 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable, the appellate court said. In particular, TRI challenged CBP's finding that the company's citric acid imports from India were of Chinese origin and subject to AD/CV duties (TR International Trading Company, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00022). CAFC ordered TRI to pay court costs totaling $28.32 to the U.S. government.

The Commerce Department's proposed schedule to review Section 232 exclusion requests on remand is "necessary in light of Commerce's current limited resources," the agency said in a Sept. 9 brief. Replying to the plaintiffs' opposition to Commerce's voluntary remand motion at the Court of International Trade, the agency also urged the court to simply defer to the proposed schedule due to Commerce's limited resources and the non-prejudicial nature of the schedule to the lawsuit's parties. Many of the consolidated plaintiffs opposed the schedule, arguing that it was "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale (see 2108170072).

If the Commerce Department is to deduct Section 232 national security tariffs from exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi's U.S. price in an antidumping duty rate calculation, it should do it at the original 25% rate and not the increased 50% margin subsequently announced by President Donald Trump and later invalidated by the Court of International Trade, the plaintiff said in a Sept. 3 CIT brief at the Court of International Trade (Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00140).