Jacob Kopnick

American steel giant U.S. Steel Corp. is seeking a stay in Russia-based steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's challenge to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials for its steel entries until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules on whether U.S. Steel can intervene in related cases. In its Oct. 27 motion at the Court of International Trade, U.S. Steel argued that "it is vital" for it to be able to intervene in the case and "represent its interests in the continued imposition of the Section 232 tariffs -- interests that will not be adequately represented by Defendant in this action" (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

Surety insurance provider Aegis Security Agency opposed on Oct. 27 the Department of Justice's bid for further discovery in a case over CBP’s attempt to collect on a bond issued by Aegis eight years after liquidation. Aegis argues that DOJ seeks to expand discovery without meeting the required standard for specificity or regard for the limitations on the scope of discovery in its request (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, CIT #20-03628).

Importer Sakar International Inc. filed four complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 28 to challenge the classification of its smartphone and tablet covers. Made predominantly of plastic or silicone, the covers were classified by CBP under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.45, 4202.92.90 or 4202.99.90, dutiable at either 17.6% or 20%.

Solar cell exporter Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., along with JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. and JingAo Solar Co., kicked off their challenge to the final results of the seventh administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicone photovoltaic cells from China in an Oct. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. JA Solar received the all-others CVD rate, which totaled 19.28%. The companies are challenging the Commerce Department's reliance on adverse facts available related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program due to Commerce's failure to verify non-use of the program by the respondents' U.S. customers (Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00548).

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

The Commerce Department's simple average of the de minimis and the adverse facts available China-wide rates to derive the all-others rate in an antidumping case did not reasonably reflect the potential dumping margin of the separate rate respondents, PrimeSource Building Products argued in an Oct. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The AFA negates the presumption that mandatory respondents' rates reflect the separate rate respondents, and prior reviews show that cooperating separate respondents' rates are lower than firms subject to AFA, the brief argued (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).

Importer DSM Nutritional Products, Inc. filed six complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 27 seeking to secure its preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for its beta-carotene with stabilizers and/or anti-caking agent imports. American International Chemical also filed an identical complaint in its case seeking the same outcome. All six cases are led by Robert Seely of Grunfeld Desiderio.

The Commerce Department properly applied adverse facts available when weighing antidumping respondent Bosun Tool's country of origin information using a first-in, first-out (FIFO) methodology, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 27 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly found that although Bosun cooperated to the best of its ability with the AD review, the use of AFA was warranted because an exporter is reasonably expected to keep documents that properly document country of origin -- something that the FIFO methodology does not do.

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

Multinational conglomerate Honeywell Inc. expects to pay upwards of $160 million to settle investigations by the Department of Justice and Brazilian law enforcement over alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the company said in its quarterly report filed on Oct. 22 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company said it continues to cooperate with DOJ and the SEC throughout the investigations, including regarding a potential resolution of the allegations. Honeywell said that it recorded a $160 million charge in its Consolidated Statement of Operations, also accruing a liability on its Consolidated Balance Sheet to account for the expected payout.