Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department stuck with its application of facts available in remand results filed at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 25 despite a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision finding that such reliance on the current data was inappropriate. Seeing as no other data was available than respondent Dillinger France's books and records, Commerce said it had to rely on them despite their deficiencies (Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, CIT #17-00159).

The Commerce Department has to reconsider two scope rulings that found that certain flanges are subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. In two decisions, the Court of International Trade said that Commerce either misinterpreted evidence or failed to consider all the relevant evidence when deciding that flanges from MCC Holdings, doing business as Crane Resistoflex, and Star Pipe Products are subject to the antidumping duty order.

The Commerce Department had more than half of the domestic industry's support when it considered an antidumping and countervailing duty petition, the Department of Justice said in an Aug. 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to a brief from consolidated plaintiff M S International (MSI), DOJ said that none of the company's arguments excuses “its failure to proffer evidence on the record sufficient to upset Commerce's industry support determination” (Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00127).

A lawsuit seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions should be dismissed because the subject entries are not liquidated, the Department of Justice said in an Aug. 26 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. The suit, brought by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, is seeking the exclusions on 19 entries of steel pipe from Turkey and claims jurisdiction under Section 1581(a). However, a protestable decision needs to occur to claim this jurisdiction -- something the plaintiffs do not have, DOJ said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 26 dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, saying 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 by way of an extension of liquidation or a protest.

CBP's enforcement of forced labor-related withhold release orders is marred by due process violations, an unreasonable standard of evidence, absence of transparency and arbitrary decisions, the American Apparel and Footwear Association said in an Aug. 26 proposed amicus brief filed at the Court of International Trade. Seeking to file the brief in a challenge over CBP's exclusion of Virtus Nutrition's palm oil imports from entry to the U.S. over forced labor allegations, the association's brief more broadly criticizes CBP's forced labor policies (Virtus Nutrition, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00165).

Consolidated plaintiff in an antidumping case Hyundai Steel in an Aug. 25 filing signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results (see 2106220064) dropping a cost-based particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test. The case comes from the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Following elimination of the PMS adjustment, Husteel, the other plaintiff in the case, received a 6.44% dumping rate, down from 10.91%, while Hyundai received a 4.82% rate, down from 8.14%. Hyundai said no parties submitted comments opposing the remand results (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00107).

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

The Commerce Department's rejection of questionnaire responses in antidumping and a countervailing duty cases filed 21 and 87 minutes late was unreasonable and a "miscarriage of justice," Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi said in two Aug. 24 reply briefs. In particular, defendant-intervenors, led by Insteel Wire Products Company, wrongly speculated about Celik Halat's counsel's awareness of the time zone at his residence in Utah, leading to three entire days for which Celik Halat had to submit the questionnaire responses. Rather, the filing deficiencies stem from an emergency medical procedure and not a time zone mishap, Celik Halat said (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00045, #21-00050).

Steel importer Transpacific Steel, along with several Turkish steel makers, wants a full court rehearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of a panel decision to uphold President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariff hike on Turkish steel. In an Aug. 23 petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, Transpacific argued that the panel's majority failed to impose the congressionally mandated limitations to the president's power in Section 232. Further, the majority improperly rejected the plaintiff appellees' equal protection claims, the petition said (Transpacific Steel LLC, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2157).