The Commerce Department cannot deduct an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 duties paid, Tube Investments of India argued in a Dec. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While the trade court has repeatedly held that Commerce can make such an adjustment, TII nevertheless filed its complaint, holding that Commerce's decision to deduct Section 232 duties from the U.S. price is not backed by substantial evidence. Nithya Nagarajan of Husch Blackwell, counsel for TII, said that she believes the facts are different in the underlying administrative review and that the legal argument will be different, perhaps giving TII a shot that its results will be different this time around at CIT. The review in question is the 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from India (Tube Investments of India v. United States, CIT #21-00598).

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

The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade, one contesting the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty review of MLWF from China and in a countervailing duty review of MLWF from China. The U.S. industry group said that Commerce erred in the AD review by deviating from its expected method when finding the final dumping margin for non-selected separate rate companies and that it erred in the CVD review by failing to properly construct benchmarks for veneers, fiberboard and paint, primer and stain (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00595) (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00596).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's decision not to conduct an on-site verification in an antidumping review, the Department of Justice told the trade court in a Dec. 17 brief. Defending the COVID-era practice in yet another case, DOJ said that the plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Company, failed to raise the issue of on-site verification to Commerce during the proceeding, and that even if the court were to consider this challenge, the off-site verification procedures were consistent with the law and necessary, given the pandemic (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).

The Commerce Department cannot apply adverse facts available to countervailing duty respondents over their customers' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, two Chinese exporters said in a Dec. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Citing 13 prior CIT decisions striking down Commerce's use of AFA in this way, the plaintiffs -- Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co. and Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co. -- said that the mandatory respondents showed they didn't use this program and that no evidence exists to the contrary (Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00599).

The Commerce Department's findings with regard to the benchmark for plywood in a countervailing duty review are unsupported by record evidence, two Chinese exporters told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 23 complaint. The two plaintiffs -- Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) and Riverside Plywood -- also argued against Commerce's "legal and factual errors" over its calculation of benefits from the sale of veneers for less than adequate remuneration (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) v. U.S., CIT #21-00600).

The Commerce Department wants another shot at considering 15 denied requests for exclusions from the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, it said in a Dec. 23 partial voluntary remand request at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's offer of reconsideration would cover only 15 of plaintiff NLMK Pennsylvania's 54 denied exclusion requests. Commerce's brief stated that counsel for NLMK did not indicate support for or opposition to the motion yet, but would oppose the agency's 150-day timeline for reconsidering the 15 exclusion requests (NLMK Pennsylvania v. U.S., CIT #21-00507).

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

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

Importer TR International Trading Company's imports of citric acid anhydrous is not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid from China, and CBP was wrong to liquidate the entries as such, TRI said in a Dec. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeking to get the court to rule against CBP's decision to liquidate its entries as being from China and not from India, TRI also blasted a Customs Laboratory's role in the process (TR International Trading Company v. United States, CIT #19-00217).