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

The Commerce Department again reversed course on applying a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for South Korean steel in an antidumping review, and those remand results were sustained by the Court of International Trade in a June 24 decision.

An in lieu of verification (ILV) questionnaire cannot substitute for an actual verification of information submitted as part of a countervailing duty proceeding, Turkish exporter Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi said in a June 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a CVD investigation of common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, Teknik said that Commerce did not provide adequate notice that the exporter's filings were deficient as is required (Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT 21-00251).

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's finding that Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. failed to rebut the presumption of de facto government control, thus barring it from receiving a separate antidumping rate, CIT said in a June 23 decision. The ruling leaves ZMC with the 92.84% China-wide rate in an antidumping administrative review on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished or unfinished, from China.

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

A customs case from importer Strategic Import Supply should not be reconsidered in light of new evidence since it is merely an attempt by the plaintiff to "relitigate arguments already raised," the Department of Justice said in a June 23 response to SIS's motion to reconsider the case. The plaintiff failed to satisfy the high burden for reconsideration, DOJ said in the Court of International Trade, and also is not entitled to amend its complaint to change the jurisdictional grounds of its claim (Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-03762).

The Commerce Department's recent interpretation of the finished merchandise exemption to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China led to the "same absurd results" the agency originally wanted to avoid in its previous "subassemblies test" interpretation, importer WKW North America argued in a June 21 brief in support of its motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. WKW contests a scope ruling from Commerce that found that the importer's automotive waist finishers, belt moldings and outer waist belts are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders because subassemblies can't qualify for the exemption (WKW North America, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00072).

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Huawei’s challenge to the FCC ban of the Chinese telecom gear vendor's equipment from networks funded by the Universal Service Fund under its national security supply chain rules (see 1911220064). Huawei sought the review in December. “If we were convinced that the FCC is here acting as ‘a sort of junior-varsity’ State Department,” the court “would set the rule aside,” Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan said Friday for the three-judge panel. “But no such skullduggery is afoot. Assessing security risks to telecom networks falls in the FCC’s wheelhouse.” Huawei is “disappointed” by the ruling and is “assessing” its “options to respond,” a spokesperson emailed: The company continues “to believe the FCC acted without authority in changing” its USF rules. The FCC didn’t comment. Wiley’s Tom Johnson, former FCC general counsel, said he’s “proud to have represented” the U.S. “in this important case.” Matthew Berry, who was chief of staff to then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, also praised the ruling.

The Commerce Department has the right to select a single mandatory respondent in antidumping proceedings, the Department of Justice said in a June 21 response brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. YC Rubber, Sutong and ITG Voma are appealing their unsuccessful Court of International Trade challenge of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In its brief, DOJ says that Commerce is not required by law to examine more than one company individually (YC Rubber Co. (North America) et al. v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1489).

The Commerce Department, under protest, dropped a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping administrative review in June 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. The agency recalculated the weighted-average dumping margins of mandatory respondents Hyundai Steel Company and Husteel Co. in the 2016-17 review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea. Husteel, the plaintiff in the case, received a 6.44% antidumping rate, down from 10.91%, while Hyundai received a 4.82% rate -- down from 8.14% before litigation (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00107).