Jacob Kopnick

Five steel companies filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in support of a full court rehearing in a critical case on presidential power regarding the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The brief, filed Sept. 7 by Oman Fasteners, Huttig Building Products, Koki Holdings America, J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple, was accepted by the appellate court Sept. 9. The five companies tap into the dissenting opinion at the Federal Circuit along with the Court of International Trade's original ruling to make the case that the appellate court erred in finding that the president could hike the Section 232 duties on Turkish goods well beyond procedural time limits (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2157).

Hong Kong-based apparel company, Changji Esquel Textile (CJE), should not be granted a preliminary injunction against its placement on the Commerce Department's Entity List, the U.S. argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Resuming litigation after talks between Commerce and CJE broke down (see 2108300058), the Department of Justice said CJE is unlikely to succeed in its case and that the company has not established certain and imminent irreparable harm (Changji Esquel Textile Co. Ltd., et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, et al., D.D.C. #21-1798).

Chinese exporter Yinfeng ripped the Commerce Department's decision to apply adverse facts available relating to the agency's inability to verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's use of AFA for the EBCP has been shot down repeatedly at CIT, yet the practice continues, Yinfeng said (Fujian Yinfeng Imp & Exp Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-0088).

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

The Commerce Department's alleged misinterpretation of a 2013 Section 129 determination that partially revoked an antidumping duty order on Shantou Red Garden Food Processing (Shantou RGFP) has the company facing millions of dollars in antidumping duty liability, Shantou RGFP said in a Sept. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Due to a misspelling that Commerce refuses to correct, Shantou RGFP found itself participating in an administrative review and being assigned an antidumping duty cash deposit rate even though it was previously found to be outside of the order, the company said (Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. et al v. U.S., CIT # 20-03947).

SMA Surfaces, Inc., formerly known as Polarstone US, and Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. each filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging two different scope rulings on antidumping and countervailing duty orders. SMA challenged the Commerce Department's decision to not exclude three specific surface products from the AD/CVD orders on quartz surface products from China, while Cheng Shin appealed Commerce's decision to not exclude the company's light-truck spare tire models from the less-than-fair-value investigation into passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (SMA Surfaces, Inc. (F/K/A Polarstone US) v. U.S., CIT #21-00399) (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

The Commerce Department continued to apply adverse facts available relating to the agency's inability to verify two mandatory respondents' non-use of China's Export Buyers Credit Program in a countervailing duty case, despite lengthy remand instructions from the Court of International Trade. Answering a series of nine questions from Judge Timothy Reif, Commerce thoroughly explained why it continues to apply AFA on this critical issue absent further collaboration with the Chinese government, in its remand results. Likening the saga over the EBCP in the court to the film Groundhog Day, Reif sought an explanation from Commerce that would firmly answer the question of whether AFA was legitimately applied on the issue (Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00032).

The Commerce Department dropped a particular market situation adjustment from a sales-below-cost test in an antidumping duty investigation, in its remand results filed at the Court of International Trade, concurrent with a court decision instructing it to do so. The agency maintains that a PMS existed for South Korean steel inputs but concedes that the court's interpretation of the law does not permit an adjustment to the cost of production for the PMS in the sales-below-cost test. The remand rate dropped for mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel Co. from 30.85% to 12.92% and for non-examined respondent SeAH Steel Corp. from 19.28% to 9.99% (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

Plaintiff Nucor Corp. ignored the "thorough explanation" that the Commerce Department gave in its remand results showing how the agency conducted its less-than-adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis regarding the electricity market in South Korea, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 reply brief. Further backing its remand at the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice argued that Commerce's remand complies with the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by properly analyzing whether the Korean Electricity Corp. (KEPCO) recovered its costs of production plus a profit (POSCO, et al. v. United States, CIT #17-00137).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate Sept. 7 in a case in which it dismissed the proceedings due to a lack of jurisdiction. In its July 14 opinion, the Federal Circuit said that the Court of International Trade was correct in dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2107140028). The plaintiff, TR International Trading Co., erred when it filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction, since it could have challenged a denied protest under Section 1581(a) or a scope ruling under Section 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable, the appellate court said. In particular, TRI challenged CBP's finding that the company's citric acid imports from India were of Chinese origin and subject to AD/CV duties (TR International Trading Company, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00022). CAFC ordered TRI to pay court costs totaling $28.32 to the U.S. government.