The Court of International Trade issued its final judgment in the Transpacific Steel case that held that the president can impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day time frame for action set out in the statute (see 2107130059). After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned CIT's original decision finding such action illegal, the trade court reversed its decision concurrent with the appellate court's mandate, in a Nov. 22 judgment. Plaintiffs in the case recently petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case (see 2111150061) (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a challenge of CBP's alleged failure to issue full Section 301 refunds for lack of jurisdiction since the case was untimely filed, the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 19 brief. Plaintiff FD Sales' rebuttal says that the 180-day deadline to file a case that runs from a protest denial does not apply in this case since CBP did not actually deny the protest, but that the protest can be considered denied in part due to CBP's failure to give the full refund. DOJ countered, in the case's most recent brief, that this argument must be rejected since it is "undisputed" that FD Sales filed its summons more than 180 days after the date of the decision (FD Sales Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00224).

The Court of International Trade permitted a group of U.S. agricultural trade associations to file an amicus brief in a case over the International Trade Commission's injury determination in an investigation into phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. After facing pushback from the U.S. and the petitioners, J.R. Simplot Company and The Mosaic Company, Judge Stephen Vaden said the amici "represent the actual users of that fertilizer, the farmers, i.e., those who ultimately pay the price of the tariffs imposed" (OCP S.A., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00219)

The Commerce Department erred in using the Cohen's d test to identify potential masked dumping in an antidumping investigation, Ashley Furniture argued in a Nov. 19 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Tapping a recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that questioned the validity of the standardized mean difference test, Ashley Furniture argued that Commerce's use of the test in the AD investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea rests on the same faulty assumptions that the Federal Circuit already rejected (Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #32-00283).

Antidumping duty respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes and Pipes Ind. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade over the Commerce Department's denial of part of its responses in an AD administrative review. The company challenges Commerce's rejection of its questionnaire responses for being untimely filed for being nearly two hours late, despite COVID-19-related technical difficulties. The decision was especially egregious since Commerce granted itself lengthy extensions to meet deadlines in the review, the company said (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00587).

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

Sales of goods warehoused in Canada to U.S. customers were not “domestic sales,” but sales “for exportation to the U.S. that should be appraised using transaction value, the Department of Justice said in a brief filed Nov. 19 at the Court of International Trade (Midwest-CBK, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 17-00154). The brief comes in reply to a filing from Midwest-CBK that argued CBP improperly valued the relevant entries because they were “domestic sales,” ordered by U.S. customers from Midwest-CBK’s U.S. sales force, and title transferred after delivery FOB in Buffalo (see 2111080068). DOJ said “domestic sales” is not a term found in the customs laws, and the sale meets all the requirements for a good sold for U.S. export.

The Government of Argentina, along with LDC Argentina, will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision that found that the Commerce Department had sufficient evidence in its changed circumstances review to support its finding that the situation had not changed regarding countervailable subsidies for Argentina's biodiesel industry. In two notices of appeal, both plaintiffs said they will now take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, the court also upheld Commerce's decision to originally find changed circumstances but later switch back to a finding of no changed circumstances, leading to a higher CVD rate (see 2109210046) (Government of Argentina v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-00119).

Steel exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision that sustained the Commerce Department's finding that Al Ghurair circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel products from China via the United Arab Emirates. In a Nov. 19 notice of appeal, AGIS said that it will appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the case, AGIS unsuccessfully argued against Commerce's finding that AGIS's level of investment and production facilities in the UAE are minor and that the value of processing in the UAE represents only a small portion of the value of the merchandise shipped to the U.S. (see 2110050065) (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00142).

The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a Court of International Trade case over steel exporter Mirror Metals' denied Section 232 exclusion requests, finding that it is appropriate to reconsider the exclusion denials. The case concerns 45 exclusion requests for flat-rolled stainless steel products that are supposedly used in large-scale architectural projects. The requests saw objections from three domestic manufacturers, leading to Commerce denying all 45 exclusion bids. The leading reason for the denials given by Commerce was the availability of the domestic capacity to make the products in question (Mirror Metals, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00144).