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

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear Hyundai Heavy Industries' case challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available to set an antidumping duty rate on power transformers from Korea. The court did not explain the June 21 petition denial. Hyundai appealed a 2019 Court of International Trade opinion sustaining Commerce's use of AFA and an opinion-less affirmation of that ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Steel exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret will appeal a June 16 Court of International Trade decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 21 notice of appeal. In the decision, Judge Jane Restani sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping administrative review of circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey. The remand results dropped any adjustments made to the sales-below-cost test relating to a particular market situation (see 2106170026). Restani said that PMS adjustments are only allowed when calculating normal value based on constructed value, as opposed to normal value based on home market sales (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00015).

Dominican aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio SRL will not be allowed to intervene in a Court of International Trade case in which it is alleged to be involved in a transshipment scheme to avoid antidumping duties, according to a June 21 order. Kingtom did not establish that its interest in continuing to sell aluminum extrusions to the importer plaintiffs without duties is an "interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action," as required by the court's rules. Kingtom also did not have a claim that shares with the main action -- a challenge of an Enforce and Protect Act" investigation -- a common question of law or fact (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions in an antidumping case on frozen warmwater shrimp from India by switching from an application of adverse facts available to neutral facts available, the Department of Justice said in June 17 comments on the remand results (Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd., Bay Seafood Pvt. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00201). So far, no parties to the case have taken issue with the remand results, though Commerce submitted them “under respectful protest.” DOJ joins defendant-intervenor and petitioner in the case, Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, in signing off on the remand results (see 2106040074).

The Commerce Department acted arbitrarily when it denied a retroactive extension to a filing deadline missed by a lawyer suffering from medical issues. a move that would eventually lead to the revocation of an antidumping duty order that had been in place for decades, a domestic producer said in challenging the revocation in a brief filed June 17.

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

Opposing sides in the Section 301 litigation sparred heatedly in the closing minutes of oral argument June 17 (see 2106170061) about the role the plaintiffs’ steering committee should play should the Court of International Trade grant the motion of sample-case plaintiffs HMTX and Jasco for a preliminary injunction to freeze the liquidations of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure.

Two steel importers, voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, want refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on imports of alloy steel since the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security published a Section 232 exclusion with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule code, they said in a June 18 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Voestalpine and Bilstein say the HTS error was only remedied after the imports had been liquidated and that no protest option was available to apply the exclusions after liquidation (voestalpine USA LLC et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).

A Court of International Trade decision eliminating the extension of Section 232 duties to steel and aluminum "derivatives" has formally been appealed by the U.S. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 17 docketing notice. The CIT ruling, decided by a three-judge panel at the trade court, found that President Donald Trump violated statutory time limits when expanding the tariffs to the derivative products. Importer PrimeSource Building Products successfully argued that the tariff expansion was announced well after the 105-day deadline for tariff action following the initial Commerce Department report that led to the initial imposition of the Section 232 duties in 2018 (see 2104050049) (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, Federal Circuit, #21-2066).