The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy is de facto specific via its Basic Payment Scheme to Spanish olive growers since they receive a "disproportionately large" amount of its benefits, the Department of Justice and defendant-intervenor Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives told the Court of International Trade in a pair of briefs (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT #18-00195).

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

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's decision to find the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review using a weighted average of the respondent's rates rather than a simple average, antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in Jan. 12 comments to the trade court. In its defense of Commerce's actions, Mid Continent cited a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion which held that Commerce can use an adverse facts available rate when finding the separate respondents' dumping margins (see 2201100026) (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. United States, CIT #18-00027).

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

Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to apply Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions to their 19 entries, filed a notice of supplemental authority citing CBP rulings on classification of steel goods under Section 232 and Presidential Proclamation 9705 on the Section 232 tariffs to further support their arguments. The Department of Justice has moved to dismiss the case since the entries are unliquidated, precluding the Court of International Trade from having judicial review over the entries and the resulting tariff exclusion claims (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's voluntary bid to reconsider its decision to countervail the reduction for sewerage fees program in South Korea due to its "new understanding of Korean law," the trade court said in a Jan. 11 order. Commerce requested the do-over in a remand motion in which the plaintiff, Hyundai Steel, consented to the voluntary bid while the defendant-intervenor, Nucor Tubular, took no position on the matter (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that the Commerce Department can calculate a separate rate respondent's dumping margin by averaging an adverse facts available rate and a de minimis rate appeared in a similar case at the Court of International Trade. In a Jan. 11 notice of supplemental authority, defendant-intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Federal Circuit opinion "once again affirmed" that the law allows Commerce to include rates based on AFA in the calculation of a separate rate if all the mandatory respondents have a zero, de minimis or AFA rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).

Countervailing duty review respondent Uttam Galva Steels impeded the Commerce Department's countervailing duty administrative review by omitting information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry, defendant-appellees California Steel Industries and Steel Dynamics told the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 11 reply brief urging the appellate court to uphold the Court of International Trade's decision in the case (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).

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

Japanese manufacturer Sigma Corporation will appeal a U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decision finding Sigma, along with other companies, guilty of False Claims Act violations related to not paying antidumping duties, Sigma told the district court in a Jan. 7 notice. The appeal will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Sigma is notifying the district court of its appeal despite the fact that the district court has not entered final judgment because the defendant wants to "preserve all appellate rights" (United States v. Vandewater International, C.D. Cal. #17-04393). In 2017, Island Industries accused Sigma and others of failing to pay antidumping duties on welded outlet imports from China while also alleging that they submitted false information to the U.S. relating to the applicability and amount of duties owed. Many of the other defendants, including Smith Cooper International Inc. and Allied Rubber and Gasket Co., were dismissed from the action (see 2103310033).