Jacob Kopnick

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

The Department of Justice removed Stephen Tosini as its principal counsel in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving Section 232 duties and replaced him with Meen Geu Oh, according to a Nov. 22 motion for leave to file an amended entry of appearance. The motion was then approved the following day by the court. DOJ said that Tosini "has just commenced a detail with another component within the Justice Department," and thus could not continue to serve as lead counsel in the case (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. , #21-2066).

Three defendant-appellants of an antidumping case -- Atlas Tube, Searing Industries and Nucor Tubular Products -- filed a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 22 to defend the Commerce Department's particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value (Dong-A Steel Company, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2153).

The Court of International Trade illegally substituted its judgment for the Commerce Department's when it found that the application of total adverse facts available was not backed by substantial evidence, antidumping duty petitioner and defendant-appellant ABB Enterprise Software argued in its Nov. 22 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error backed disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases, ABB said (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).

The antidumping and countervailing duties that importer Fedmet Resources now has to pay as a result of a CBP duty evasion ruling amounts to an "embargo" and deprives Fedmet of market access, the importer argued in a Nov. 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, CBP violated Fedmet's due process rights by not even notifying the importer of the existence of the investigation until the interim measures were put in place and not giving it an opportunity to respond to evidence against it, the brief said (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

The Court of International Trade committed a logical error when it dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the importer and purchaser said in a brief attempting to keep their case alive. Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the purchaser, and Voestalpine USA, the importer, moved for a reconsideration of CIT's decision, which held that the plaintiffs had already received the relief available to them from the Commerce Department in the form of a product exclusion but failed to preserve their ability to receive a refund through a protest or an extension of liquidation (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03829).

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

CBP erred when it found that importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China, the two companies said in a Nov. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Accused of evading the orders via transshipping the grates through South Korea and also misclassifying the entries, Ikadan and Gaosai said that the evasion finding cuts against CBP's own analysis as to the scope of the orders and represents an improper attempt to retroactively apply AD/CV duties (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592)

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

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's reversion to its initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty in an antidumping duty investigation, both the plaintiff, Borusan Mannemsann, and the antidumping petitioners said. However, the sides were divided over what to do about Commerce's failure to address Borusan's date of sale, with Borusan simply calling for CIT to sustain the results and the petitioners calling for another remand to address the sale date issue (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).