Just because Section 232 tariffs are placed in Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, this doesn't make them remedial tariffs, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 brief. The tariffs also aren't temporary, don't count as a double remedy and can be deducted from an antidumping duty respondent's export price, the brief said (Borusan Mannesman Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2097).

Steel trailer wheel exporter Zhejiang Jingu Co. will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit two court decisions on the Commerce Department's scope revision in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on steel trailer wheels from China, according to the pair of notices of appeal. In November 2021, the Court of International Trade upheld Commerce's inclusion of steel trailer wheels coated in chrome through a physical vapor deposition process under the ADD/CVD orders on steel trailer wheels while also dropping the retroactive imposition of the duties on subject merchandise (see 2111180043). One case concerns the antidumping duty order and the other is on the countervailing duty order (Trans Texas Tire v. U.S., CIT #19-00188, -00189).

The Commerce Department reasonably hit countervailing duty respondent Uttam Galva Steels Limited with adverse facts available over its failure to reveal its affiliation with a cross-owned producer of the subject merchandise, Lloyds Steel Industries Limited, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 reply brief. Since Uttam Galva only admitted to affiliation with LSIL after prodding from Commerce, the respondent failed to have cooperated to the best of its ability, justifying the use of AFA, DOJ said (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).

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

The Department of Justice will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a November 2021 Court of International Trade decision striking down the Trump administration's withdrawal of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, according to a Jan. 14 notice of appeal. In the opinion, the trade court struck down the exclusion rescission since the law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Government of Argentina and Argentine biodiesel company LDC Argentina over the Commerce Department's changed circumstances review of countervailing duties on biodiesel from Argentina. The two had appealed a Court of International Trade decision affirming Commerce's determination that the situation had not changed regarding countervailable subsides from Argentina's biodiesel industry. The trade court also upheld Commerce's decision to originally find changed circumstances but later switch back to a finding of no changed circumstances (see 2109210046) (Government of Argentina v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1190).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding on small vertical shaft engines from China, Briggs & Stratton said in a Jan. 14 brief. Responding to plaintiff MTD Products, which argued that COVID-19 manufacturing complications distorted both the timing and the volume of imports over the post-petition period (see 2106010058), Briggs & Stratton said that the ITC took into account the timing and volume of the imports and any rapid upticks in inventories of the imports when making its decision (MTD Products Inc v. United States, CIT #21-00264).

PrimeSource Building Products distinguished a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision affirming the Commerce Department's ability to use adverse facts available in its separate rate calculation from its case at issue at the Court of International Trade. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority to rival the one submitted by the antidumping petitioner, PrimeSource said that the recent Federal Circuit opinion in Bosun Tools v. U.S. is not applicable to its case since the appellate court noted an increasing trend in past rates calculated for one of the separate rate respondents that justified the use of AFA. No such trend exists in PrimeSource's case, the brief said.

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

Two importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain remand results from the Commerce Department that found certain door thresholds qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In a pair of briefs filed in two separate cases, Columbia Aluminum Products and Worldwide Door Components said Commerce correctly reversed course after CIT's remand (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).