The Commerce Department properly found that importer Vandewater International Inc.'s steel branch outlets are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, Island Industries told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 brief. Vandewater's and plaintiff-intervenors Sigma Corporation's and Smith-Cooper International's arguments over any differences between their steel branch outlets and BWPF are "factually inconsequential," the brief said (Vandewater International v. United States, CIT #18-00199).

Antidumping respondent Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Co.'s bid to indefinitely extend a preliminary injunction should be rejected by the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ said that Cheng Shin failed to show that it will suffer immediate irreparable harm for its entries made beyond the original expiration date of the injunction -- June 30, 2022 -- and that if its entries beyond this date are at risk of being liquidated, that the exporter can just request an extension of the injunction (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

The Court of International Trade, in a confidential opinion, sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the countervailing duty investigation of cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Following litigation at CIT, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's ruling, ultimately finding that an alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration subsidy program failed to provide a benefit and thus, was not countervailable. On remand again at CIT, Commerce further laid out its rationale, concurrent with the Federal Circuit opinion, for finding that a benefit does not exist. Judge Mark Barnett told litigants in a Jan. 21 letter to review the decision for any potential confidential information in the opinion and to report back by Jan. 28 (POSCO v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00225).

The Commerce Department did not adhere to the Court of International Trade's orders when it excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions said in a Jan. 21 brief. The court did not instruct Commerce to exclude Star Pipe's flanges but rather to "conduct a more comprehensive review," which the agency failed to do. "Rather, the redetermination simply assumes, incorrectly, that a particular result had been directed by the Court," the brief said (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).

An antidumping duty respondent wrongly reported that two of its products had different sensitivity characteristics and thus should have been coded with the same control number (CONNUM), the ADD petitioners told the Court of International in a Jan. 21 complaint. Petitioners Appvion Operations and Domtar also said the Commerce Department should have used partial adverse facts available over the respondent's failure to adequately measure and report the static sensitivity of its thermal paper (Appvion Operations v. U.S., CIT #21-00634).

The Wind Tower Trade Coalition will appeal a December Court of International Trade decision that sustained the Commerce Department's decision to ultimately find no countervailable subsidization in a countervailing duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from Indonesia. The plaintiff and defendant-intervenor will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the Jan. 20 notice of appeal. The trade court said that Commerce properly found that PT. Krakatau POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned firm -- wasn't an authority nor directed by an authority and thus couldn't provide countervailable benefits (see 2112280046). The judge said that while the result of the case may be "disappointing" to the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, it represents a proper application of the law (PT. Kenertec Power System v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03687).

The Commerce Department came back with remand results in a case on its antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, relying on total cost of production for prime and non-prime merchandise in respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books as facts otherwise available and revising the major input rule adjustment for Dillinger's coke inputs to reflect a contemporaneous comparison of coke consumption values and freight costs (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158). Commerce also revised its adjustments to Dillinger's COP for inputs and services rendered to affiliates and gave a further explanation for its use of partial adverse facts available to respondent Salzgitter. The result was a 4.98% dumping rate for Dillinger, a 22.90% rate for Salzgitter and a 20.99% all-others rate, if the remand results are sustained.

The Commerce Department should not have considered "(k)(1)" materials over the plain meaning of the scope of an antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China in finding that certain flanges fall outside of the ADD order, defendant-intervenor ASC Engineered Solutions said in Jan. 20 comments at the Court of International Trade. Since Commerce found that Crane Resistoflex's flanges "clearly fall within the plain language of the scope," that should have been the end of the case. Instead, Commerce considered the (k)(1) materials and illegally excluded Crane's flanges, the brief said (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).

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

The United States will not participate in the appeal over whether the law permits expedited countervailing duty reviews, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 19 letter. In the case, originally brought by the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, the Court of International Trade said that there was no legal authority for such reviews (see 2108190002). The decision was then appealed by the Canadian government, among other parties, which argued that the trade court improperly applied Chevron deference to the Commerce Department when it found that two different sections of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act didn't give Commerce the legal authority to carry out expedited reviews (see 2112280025) (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #19-00122).