The Commerce Department erred by including both research and development expenses for non-subject goods and "compensation for payment" expenses for non-subject merchandise in the general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation during an antidumping duty review, exporter Nagase and Co. said in a Nov. 24 complaint. Filing its case at the Court of International Trade, Nagase also pushed back against the Commerce Department's calculation of the assessment rate (Nagase & Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

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

The antidumping and countervailing duties that importer Fedmet Resources now has to pay as a result of a CBP duty evasion ruling amounts to an "embargo" and deprives Fedmet of market access, the importer argued in a Nov. 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, CBP violated Fedmet's due process rights by not even notifying the importer of the existence of the investigation until the interim measures were put in place and not giving it an opportunity to respond to evidence against it, the brief said (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

The Department of Justice removed Stephen Tosini as its principal counsel in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving Section 232 duties and replaced him with Meen Geu Oh, according to a Nov. 22 motion for leave to file an amended entry of appearance. The motion was then approved the following day by the court. DOJ said that Tosini "has just commenced a detail with another component within the Justice Department," and thus could not continue to serve as lead counsel in the case (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. , #21-2066).

The Court of International Trade illegally substituted its judgment for the Commerce Department's when it found that the application of total adverse facts available was not backed by substantial evidence, antidumping duty petitioner and defendant-appellant ABB Enterprise Software argued in its Nov. 22 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error backed disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases, ABB said (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).

Three defendant-appellants of an antidumping case -- Atlas Tube, Searing Industries and Nucor Tubular Products -- filed a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 22 to defend the Commerce Department's particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value (Dong-A Steel Company, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2153).

The Court of International Trade committed a logical error when it dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the importer and purchaser said in a brief attempting to keep their case alive. Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the purchaser, and Voestalpine USA, the importer, moved for a reconsideration of CIT's decision, which held that the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund through a protest or an extension of liquidation (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03829).

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

Plaintiff and antidumping duty respondent GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company will appeal a September Court of International Trade opinion sustaining the Commerce Department's calculation of the separate rate in an antidumping duty administrative review by averaging the separate rates from the previous four administrative reviews, according to a Nov. 23 notice of appeal. The case will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The September decision came in a case involving the 2015-2016 review of the AD duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam in which the court originally rejected Commerce's separate rate calculation (see 2109270035). The court then upheld this calculation after the agency based the rate on more contemporaneous data (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00063).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered a hearing to be held Jan. 27 over a motion from gun manufacturers to dismiss a case brought by the Mexican government over their alleged illegal gun selling practices. Mexico brought the case against the American gun manufacturers and distributors for marketing and selling their guns in a way that arms the drug cartels in Mexico, including the use of corrupt gun dealers and the trafficking of weapons across the U.S.-Mexico border (see 2108050037). The defendants argue that, among other things, the Mexican government lacks standing to sue them in a U.S. federal court (see 2111230047). In a Nov. 24 order, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor ordered the Mexican government to file any opposition to the motion to dismiss by Dec. 23 (Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., D.C. Mass. #21-11269).