Jacob Kopnick

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

The Commerce Department switched its original determination and relied on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by an antidumping respondent in Sept. 2 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Following the second remand in the case, Commerce made the change after the court sustained the other seven issues under contention in the first remand (Husteel Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00112).

The Commerce Department violated the law in its refusal to accept antidumping respondent OCTAL's new factual information attempting to refute the assumption of affiliation between it and one of its U.S. customers, OCTAL argued in a Sept. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade. Following a voluntary remand proceeding meant to give OCTAL a shot at commenting on the affiliation determination, OCTAL blasted the agency for not including its new facts in the case attempting to prove that it is not affiliated with the U.S. customer with which it has an exclusive supply agreement (OCTAL Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).

The Commerce Department was wrong to not remove a Section 232 steel tariff adjustment in an antidumping duty calculation in light of the Court of International Trade's opinion finding the tariff hike on Turkish steel was illegal, Turkish steel importer Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret said in a Sept. 2 brief. Following CIT's decision in Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Commerce should not have deducted the cost of the duties from Borusan's U.S. price in an antidumping case, the exporter argued. Borusan also again argued that Section 232 duties should not be deducted from the U.S. price since, like Section 201 duties, they are remedial, temporary and would be double-counted if deducted (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00132).

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

Tapered roller bearing importer Wanxiang America Corporation does not have jurisdiction to challenge guidance issued from the Commerce Department to CBP on the assessment of antidumping duties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Sept. 2 decision upholding a ruling from the Court of International Trade. Jurisdiction under the court's residual jurisdiction, Section 1581(i), cannot be claimed by "creative pleading," and proper jurisdiction for Wanxiang America's case could have been claimed elsewhere based on the "true nature of the action," the court said. The Federal Circuit pointed to a CIT's denied protest jurisdiction under Section 1581(a), and antidumping and countervailing duty challenge jurisdiction under Section 1581(c), as potential jurisdictional homes for the action.

CBP was incorrect to not extend a Section 301 tariff exclusion on side protective attachments for cars onto Keystone Automotive Operations' entries, the importer said in its Sept. 2 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Claiming that the auto parts fit under the terms of the exclusion, Keystone is challenging CBP's deemed denial of its protest (Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00215).

The record doesn't support the claim that the Commerce Department erred by applying constructed value instead of plaintiff Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited's third-country sales data to Vietnam when calculating normal value in an antidumping review, the Justice Department said in a Sept. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to ZASF's motion for judgment, DOJ said that instead, record evidence actually shows that Commerce reasonably found that ZASF's sales to its Vietnamese customers were not representative, given evidence showing that the customers were processors and exporters of shrimp to the U.S. market (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited et al v. United States, CIT #21-00031).

The Commerce Department must reconsider its decision to collapse two mandatory respondents and one of their affiliates in an antidumping duty investigation on corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) products from Taiwan, the Court of International Trade ruled on Sept. 1, seeking to bring Commerce's results in line with a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mandate. Judge Timothy Stanceu also ordered Commerce to use facts otherwise available with an adverse inference on one of the respondent's reporting of yield strength in the investigation.

The level of trade in the U.S. is irrelevant to the Universal Tube and Plastic Industries' argument that the Commerce Department incorrectly found there to be only a single level of trade in the home market in an antidumping duty case, plaintiffs led by Universal Tube argued in an Aug. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as the Department of Justice and the antidumping petitioner repeatedly raised this point to argue against Universal's position, it is unclear whether they did so to confuse the court with "irrelevant" details or just don't "understand the distinctions," the brief said (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 20-03944).