The Commerce Department's rejection of questionnaire responses in antidumping and a countervailing duty cases filed 21 and 87 minutes late was unreasonable and a "miscarriage of justice," Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi said in two Aug. 24 reply briefs. In particular, defendant-intervenors, led by Insteel Wire Products Company, wrongly speculated about Celik Halat's counsel's awareness of the time zone at his residence in Utah, leading to three entire days for which Celik Halat had to submit the questionnaire responses. Rather, the filing deficiencies stem from an emergency medical procedure and not a time zone mishap, Celik Halat said (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00045, #21-00050).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The Department of Justice, in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade initially filed by Fine Furniture (Shanghai), requested CIT sustain the Commerce Department's remand results, in Aug. 24 comments. The case stems from an antidumping duty administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China. Following multiple court decisions and remand results (see 2107130080), Fine Furniture's case was stayed pending a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which eventually found that Fine Furniture is not subject to the antidumping duty order. Since the mandatory respondents in the underlying AD duty order received de minimis rates in Commerce's final determination, Fine Furniture was removed from the review. This led to the AD duty rate for all separate rate respondents falling to zero percent (Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #14-00135). Most recently, the plaintiffs all signed off on the remand results, leaving no party to challenge the redetermination and nothing further to resolve in the litigation (see 2108110023).

Plaintiff Nucor Corporation mischaracterized, oversimplified and took the Commerce Department's remand results out of context in its comments on a submission in a case stemming from the agency's countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, the Department of Justice said in Aug. 18 comments at the Court of International Trade, backing the remand redetermination. DOJ continued to back Commerce's contention that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel through cheap electricity. Contrary to what Nucor's comments assert, Commerce adhered to the statute when completing its less-than-adequate remuneration analysis in the CVD case and properly accounted for the Korean Power Exchange's role in the electricity market, DOJ said (POSCO, et al. v. U.S., CIT #16-00227).

The Commerce Department properly used the expected method in an antidumping duty administrative review when it averaged two adverse facts available rates to apply to the non-individually examined respondents, the Department of Justice argued in an Aug. 16 filing at the Court of International Trade. Due to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, which held that the antidumping duty rate for mandatory respondents should be found to be representative unless enough evidence shows otherwise, Commerce properly used the expected method to find the non-individually examined respondents' rate, it said (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).

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

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

CBP deprived Norca Industrial Company of its due process rights and engaged in "unlawful speculation" when finding that Norca evaded antidumping duties, the company said in its motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Another in a long line of importers to challenge the constitutionality of the Enforce and Protect Act process, Norca argued that CBP failed to grant it proper access to the record evidence during the investigation and based its determination on allegations of document discrepancies that the agency never gave the importer a chance to explain (Norca Industrial Company, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00192).

Russian steel importer NLMK's lawsuit against U.S. Steel alleging the Pittsburgh-based company misled the Commerce Department when it objected to NLMK's Section 232 exclusion requests will stay in Pennsylvania federal court, per an Aug. 19 ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Judge William Stickman IV denied NLMK's motion to keep the case in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, where it was originally filed, finding that the case raises federal issues including recreating Commerce's thought process in examining the exclusion requests (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC, et al. v. United States Steel Corporation, W.D. Pa. #21-00273).

The U.S. partially opposed Ashley Furniture Industries' motion for an open-ended statutory injunction against the liquidation of its mattress imports, saying that the injunction should only run to the end of the first antidumping administrative review period. Making its case in the Court of International Trade, the U.S. said that Ashley failed to show that it will suffer immediate and irreparable harm for its mattress entries made after April 30, 2022 -- the date that "corresponds to the end of the period of review for the first administrative review" (Ashley Furniture Industries, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00283).