Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made a splash when it said that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping review respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value (see 2112100039). This opinion surfaced in two Court of International Trade cases also contesting Commerce's PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test via a pair of supplemental authority notices (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consl. #20-03868) (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

The Court of International Trade suspended the liquidation of Adisseo Espana's and Adisseo USA's methionine imports in a Dec. 14 statutory injunction order until litigation is completed over an injury determination on the imports. Adisseo launched its challenge in October to contest the International Trade Commission's finding that methionine imports from Spain and Japan injured the domestic methionine industry (see 2111150039). The Spanish company argued that the ITC spurned the commission's own traditional quarterly price comparisons in favor of "less reliable, anecdotal evidence." The statutory injunction motion, though, was filed upon consent of the Justice Department, and would enjoin methionine imports brought in between March 4, 2021, and Aug. 4, 2022 (Adisseo Espana S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00562).

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

CBP was well within its rights to reverse its finding that an importer evaded antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, both the defendant-intervenors, Minh Phu Seafood Joint Stock Co. and MSeafood Corp., and the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a pair of reply briefs. Responding to a motion for judgment from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade and Enforcement Committee, both briefs also argued that the petitioner group had no right to the business confidential information in the investigation, calling AHSTEC's arguments "borderline irresponsible" (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).

The refunds issued to parties that challenged President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff hike on Turkish steel are either back in the government's hands or on their way, the litigants told the Court of International Trade in a joint status report (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).

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

The Court of International Trade set a date -- March 22, 2022 -- for in-person oral argument date to discuss importer Crown Cork & Seal's motion to dismiss the first two counts of a customs fraud case brought by the Department of Justice. DOJ launched its case following a 10-year investigation, seeking more than $18 million over misclassified metal vacuum closures, alleging fraud, gross negligence and negligence. CCS moved to dismiss these first two counts, holding that the U.S. only has the facts to support a claim of negligence (The United States v. Crown Cork & Seal, USA, Inc. et al., CIT #21-361).

The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found building materials company Bruskin International's opening and reply briefs to not be in compliance with the court's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 10 notice. The paper copies of the briefs were not printed single-sided, contrary to court rules. The court does permit, though, the double-sided printing of appendices. Further, the paper copies of the reply brief had an incorrect yellow cover since the cover of the appellant's reply brief must be gray, the notice said (M S International, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1679).

The Commerce Department cannot redefine price adjustments in less-than-fair-value investigations to "disaggregate" the value actually agreed to by the buyer and the seller, defendant-appellant LDC Argentina told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 7 reply brief. Commerce did just that, though, when it made a price adjustment for renewable identification numbers (RINs) -- credits used for compliance with the EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard Program (Vicentin S.A.I.C., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).

The Commerce Department's position that the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is specific to solar cell producers is not backed by substantial evidence, countervailing duty review respondent Risen Energy Co. argued in a Dec. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The arguments that the government relies on misinterpret the evidence cited by Commerce and in fact affirm the minor role of China's National Development and Reform Commission -- the entity China used to establish the specificity of the alleged benefits, Risen argued (Risen Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03912).