Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department cannot redefine price adjustments in less-than-fair-value investigations to "disaggregate" the value actually agreed to by the buyer and the seller, defendant-appellant LDC Argentina told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 7 reply brief. Commerce did just that, though, when it made a price adjustment for renewable identification numbers (RINs) -- credits used for compliance with the EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard Program (Vicentin S.A.I.C., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).

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

The refunds issued to parties that challenged President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff hike on Turkish steel are either back in the government's hands or on their way, the litigants told the Court of International Trade in a joint status report (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00009).

The Commerce Department must either further explain or reconsider its decision to adjust the steel plate costs for all reported control numbers in an antidumping duty investigation into wind towers, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 13 ruling. The agency must do so since it failed to group the CONNUMs by any of the established 11 physical characteristics used to differentiate the products or otherwise use the characteristics as a "guidepost," Judge Leo Gordon said.

The Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Dec. 10 opinion. Cementing what the Court of International Trade has repeatedly held, a three-judge panel at the appellate court said that the statute -- in particular, a section of the 2015 Trade Preferences Extension Act -- does not permit such a PMS adjustment. Rather, the statute only allows a PMS adjustment for constructed value, the Federal Circuit said.

The Commerce Department's position that the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is specific to solar cell producers is not backed by substantial evidence, countervailing duty review respondent Risen Energy Co. argued in a Dec. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The arguments that the government relies on misinterpret the evidence cited by Commerce and in fact affirm the minor role of China's National Development and Reform Commission -- the entity China used to establish the specificity of the alleged benefits, Risen argued (Risen Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03912).

The Court of International Trade should not stay a case over the U.S.'s bid to collect antidumping duties on entries brought in between 2000 and 2001, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 10 brief. Though the defendant in the case, surety company American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), wants the case stayed until a resolution in a similar case, the U.S. argues that it will be harmed due to its ongoing discovery efforts in the AHAC action and that AHAC has failed to show any hardship. The U.S. also says the speculative nature of how the related case will affect the AHAC action does not warrant a stay (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

Importer 3BTech launched a second, identical classification battle over its electric scooters, known as hoverboards, in a Dec. 10 complaint in which it alleges the hoverboards were assessed duties under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading at entry into the U.S. 3BTech argues for a different HTS subheading than the one given to it by CBP, and, failing that, argues for an exclusion from the Section 301 China tariffs granted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (3BTech, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00026).

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

The issue of whether a South Korean port usage rights program is countervailable is not moot just because the Commerce Department has now assigned a de minimis rate to the countervailing duty respondent, Hyundai Steel Co. argued in a Dec. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Rather, since Commerce can continue subjecting Hyundai to countervailing duty reviews based on this port usage rights program, the question is key for Hyundai, despite the fact that it is not being hit with CV duties this time around, the company said (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #20-03799).