Jacob Kopnick

A group of U.S. steel companies, including U.S. Steel Corp., made their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 8 brief as to why they should be allowed to intervene in multiple cases challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny an exclusion to Section 232 national security tariffs. The Court of International Trade had denied their right to intervene due to the companies' lack of a legally protectable interest in the cases. The American steel producers countered by arguing that they have a right to intervene based on their participation administratively in the exclusion cases, direct economic stake in the outcome and position as intended beneficiaries of the Section 232 measures (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).

The Commerce Department need not address the issue of an antidumping respondent's date of sale since it would have no material effect on the respondent's rate, the Department of Justice said in a Dec. 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the antidumping petitioner's comments that argued that Commerce needs to resolve the U.S. date of sale issue as required by the court, the U.S. said that this would be an exercise in futility that is not required by the relevant caselaw since it would be immaterial to the final rate. The respondent, Turkish steel company Borusan Mannesmann echoed these sentiments in its own brief, and added that two-and-a-half years is long enough for it to have waited for the relief that it is entitled to (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).

Importer MTD Products Inc. argued in its Dec. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade that its lawn mower engines qualify for duty-free treatment and, in the alternative, an exclusion to the Section 301 China tariffs, and that CBP improperly denied its protest claiming as much. The importer brought in spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China, each valued at less than $180, that are used in walk-behind, riding and zero-turn riding lawn mowers (MTD Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00036).

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).

The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's switch from Thai to Bulgarian surrogate data and Thai to Mexican surrogate data for a key solar cell input in two nearly identical Dec. 8 opinions on two separate antidumping duty reviews. After previously finding that Commerce's reliance on the Thai data was improper, the court had directed Commerce to either switch to another option or further explain its position. The agency reversed course in both cases, finding no objection by any party, including any of the plaintiffs, led by Solarworld Americas, Inc. and Canadian Solar International, respectively.

The Court of International Trade greenlighted the Department of Justice's second motion for an extension to file comments on the remand results in a Dec. 8 order submitted in a case over an antidumping scope ruling. Plaintiff-intervenor SIGMA Corporation opposed the bid, arguing that a further delay will prejudice it. SIGMA currently is wrapped up in parallel litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the defendant-intervenor in the CIT case, Island Industries Inc., sued SIGMA and others, arguing that the companies violated the False Claims Act by not paying antidumping duties on their welded outlet imports. While a jury verdict has been entered, SIGMA is seeking a new trial since the verdict was "against the weight of the evidence," SIGMA said (Vandewater International Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00199).

CBP unfairly denied importer Compressed Air Systems' protest showing that it overpaid duties and fees for its air compressor and vacuum pump part entries, CAS argued in its Dec. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Due to a clerical error committed by the customs broker, the entries were overvalued, CAS said. CBP then refused to fix the error after the importer protested CBP's liquidation of the entries, leading the company to file suit with the trade court (Compressed Air Systems, LLC v. CBP, CIT #21-00615).

The Commerce Department went too far when hitting antidumping respondent BlueScope Steel Ltd. with total adverse facts available in an AD review, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 30 opinion, made public on Dec. 8. Remanding the case to Commerce, Judge Richard Eaton said that Commerce failed to back its AFA finding for two reasons: it did not show that BlueScope's responses created a gap in the record over its U.S. sales quantity and value report, and failed to give notice of deficient responses relating to reconciling BlueScope's U.S. and home market sales information with prior submissions.

The Court of International Trade cannot set aside case law finding that subassemblies do not qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion in antidumping and countervailing duty order scope rulings, Judge Stephen Vaden said in a Dec. 6 opinion. Siding with the Commerce Department over plaintiffs China Customs Manufacturing and Greentec Engineering, the court said the plaintiffs' solar roof mountings fall within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusion from China.

Surety company International Bond & Marine is responsible for over $730,000 in unpaid duties resulting from a diamond jewelry company's fraudulent import scheme, the Department of Justice alleged in a Dec. 6 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Due to the terms of the bond agreement between International Bond and the jewelry company, Anaya Gems, the surety must cover the unpaid duties that accrued as a result of Anaya Gems' efforts to undervalue its jewelry shipments and underpay customs duties owed, DOJ said (United States v. International Bond & Marine, Ltd., CIT #21-00611).