Jacob Kopnick

Following the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union, the European Commission does not want to see the U.K. join the bloc's 2007 Lugano Convention -- a pact that recognizes jurisdiction and enforcement of judgment in civil and commercial matters. In a May 4 communication from the EC to the European Parliament and Council, the commission said the Lugano Convention is meant for the internal market of the EU. and because the U.K. is now a “third party without a special link to the internal market,” it does not warrant access to the convention. In its stead, the commission recommends taking the normal course of action in recognizing jurisdiction with Britain and following the framework laid out by the Hague Conventions in the field of civil judicial cooperation.

Following a key decision from the Court of International Trade striking down Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivatives" (see 2104050049), steel nail importer Hilti filed a lawsuit of its own in the court seeking to reap the benefits. In a May 5 complaint, Hilti made several arguments similar to those in PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, et al. Among other things, Hilti said the already struck-down Section 232 tariff expansion to include steel derivatives was improper because there was no underlying report from the Commerce Department (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

The Court of International Trade on May 5 upheld the Commerce Department's rejection of Vietnamese steel exporter Vnsteel-Phu My Flat Steel Co.'s (PMF) quantity and value questionnaire in an antidumping duty circumvention case. In the opinion, Judge Timothy Reif sided with Commerce, ruling that the agency's decision to instead apply adverse facts available was in accordance with the law, given PMF's incomplete, then untimely resubmission of, the Q&V questionnaire form.

The Commerce Department will no longer apply adverse facts available to the antidumping rate for an Indian shrimp exporter, it said in remand results filed May 4 (Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00201). The filing follows a Feb. 3 Court of International Trade decision which found that Commerce did not aid a small, first-time mandatory respondent to an AD case enough and unlawfully applied AFA to the exporter (see 2102030006). Commerce will now use neutral facts available, leading the agency to drop frozen warmwater shrimp exporter Elque Group's dumping margin to 27.66% from 110.9%.

Truck and bus tire exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. cited a recent Court of International Trade opinion to argue that it should be given an individual dumping rate in an antidumping investigation of truck and bus tires from China, in an April 30 notice of supplemental authority. Drawing on CIT's April 29 opinion in Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. U.S. (see 2104300079), Guizhou claimed that an argument it made in its own case in CIT directly mirrors one accepted by the court about how de facto government control is determined by the Commerce Department.

The Court of International Trade ruled that the Commerce Department improperly applied adverse facts available to Chinese ribbon exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. in a countervailing duty administrative review. In an April 30 opinion, Judge Timothy Stanceu found that Commerce did not consider record evidence fairly when determining whether Yama received a subsidy from the Export Buyer's Credit Program from the Export-Import Bank of China. Remanding the case, Stanceu also held that Commerce failed again to consider all relevant record evidence in its decision to include subsidy rates to inputs of synthetic yarn and caustic soda in the CVD review.

Cannabis processing equipment importer Root Sciences accused the Department of Justice of playing "judicial keep away" with particular customs cases, in an April 30 response to the government's motion to dismiss. Arguing to keep jurisdiction of its case under the Court of International Trade, Root Sciences made the case for why its challenge of the deemed exclusion of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine should remain in the trade court and why DOJ's arguments against that position are disingenuous.

A nail importer and the Justice Department have agreed that judgment should be awarded in favor of the importer and the Section 232 tariffs on "derivatives" paid by the importer should be refunded, according to a joint status report filed April 30 (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 20-00037). Oman Fasteners and DOJ say the Court of International Trade's recent decision in a case involving PrimeSource is "parallel and substantially similar" to the main issue in Oman Fasteners' lawsuit (see 2104050049). Oman Fasteners and DOJ urged the court to rule in favor of the exporter on the question of the timeliness of the tariff expansion but to dismiss Oman Fasteners' remaining claims. Oman Fasteners also moved that the court “order other appropriate relief, including terminating Plaintffs' obligations to post continuous bonds to cover duties enacted pursuant to” the president's decision to expand the tariffs. Oman Fasteners also filed an unopposed motion for entry of final judgment in the case.

The Court of International Trade granted the Justice Department's request for a voluntary remand in the antidumping duty investigation on polyethylene terephthalate sheet from Oman, in an April 30 order. OCTAL says it was not given the chance to comment during the investigation on a Commerce determination that the exporter was affiliated with one of its customers. OCTAL also said the trade court should give Commerce greater than 90 days for the remand in order to reopen the record in the investigation to account for new information. DOJ agreed that the case should be remanded, but not to an extension of the 90-day deadline to reopen the record. CIT's order says the remand must be filed within 90 days.

The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping case to the Commerce Department, finding that the agency's determination that wood flooring importer Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. was de facto controlled by the Chinese government lacked substantial evidence. Judge Richard Eaton, in the April 29 opinion, also found that Commerce's application of its non-market economy policy to Jilin did not clear the proper evidentiary standard, launching into an elongated discussion of the policy's original intent.