Deficiency notices are only required when the Commerce Department has decided to reject a submission and apply adverse facts available, the government said in oral argument in a case regarding the department’s alleged erroneous failure to apply a constructed export price (CEP) offset to two South Korean steel manufacturers (Wheatland Tube v. U.S., CIT # 22-00160).

The Court of International Trade sustained 162 requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions submitted by importer California Steel Industries in a confidential decision, though the court remanded 31 separate exclusion denials. Judge M. Miller Baker said that should the Commerce Department grant any of the 31 remanded exclusion requests, it shall tell CBP "to honor them" by extending the exclusions to "otherwise-eligible entries" that had not finally liquidated by the fifth business day after the original exclusion request denials (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).

The U.S. corrected a representation it made during Nov. 11 oral argument about whether petitioner Bonney Forge could have attended an on-site verification of respondent Shakti Forge Industries during an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 14 issued its mandate in a pair of antidumping and countervailing duty scope cases in which it sustained the Commerce Department's inclusion of door thresholds imported by Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products in the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2410080046). The court said Commerce adequately explained that door thresholds are subassemblies and not qualified for the finished merchandise exception. The court affirmed that subassemblies and finished merchandise are "mutually exclusive categories" (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).

A U.S. mattress importer on Nov. 12 opposed the government’s motion to dismiss its challenge to the International Trade Commission’s critical circumstances determination on mattresses from Burma, saying that its questionnaire response in the ITC’s investigation was enough to give it standing at the Court of International Trade (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).

The Court of International Trade dismissed Byungmin Chae's second lawsuit challenging his results of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, finding that the suit is precluded by the Nebraska resident's first case challenging the test.

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. and domestic producers of superabsorbent polymers Nov. 12 both supported the Commerce Department's redetermination on remand that switched back to its preliminary determination’s method of model matching in a highly technical case (see 2406170034) (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. United States, CIT # 23-00010).

The U.S. brief opposing exporter Koehler Oberkirch GmbH's petition for mandamus relief on the question of whether the government properly served the exporter relies on "case law of other circuits" and not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Koehler argued. Filing a response brief on Nov. 12, the exporter said the "law of other jurisdictions does not determine legal error or a clear abuse of discretion in this Circuit" (In Re Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

The Commerce Department erred in finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost was de facto specific in the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued in a Nov. 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Hyundai added that Commerce violated the statute on specificity in CVD cases in relying on the "original electricity consumption data" for its de facto specificity finding (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00190).