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

The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review over the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program is not backed by sufficient evidence, nonselected respondent Evolutions Flooring and Struxtur said in a Dec. 20 complaint. Filing at the Court of International Trade, the companies also contested Commerce's calculations for various inputs' less-than-adequate remuneration programs (Evolutions Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00591).

The Court of International Trade should reject exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s argument that the Commerce Department's calculation of financial ratios in an antidumping duty investigation is inconsistent with the agency's practice, defendant-intervenor American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance said in a Dec. 21 brief. In the reply to Ancientree's comments on Commerce's remand results, the AKCA also said Ancientree's argument against the accuracy of Commerce's financial ratio calculation is meritless because using more line items doesn't always result in more accuracy (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00114).

The plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors in an antidumping case are appealing the Court of International Trade's decision to uphold the Commerce Department's surrogate pick, the litigants said in a Dec. 21 notice of appeal. In an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, Commerce picked Malaysia as the primary surrogate despite still using a Romanian company's financial statements to determine the surrogate financial ratios (see 2110250027). The court also upheld the agency's surrogate value selection for bituminous coal, an input of activated carbon, and Commerce's financial ratio calculations. The case will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The plaintiffs, Carbon Activated Tianjin, Carbon Activated Corporation and Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon, along with plaintiff-intervenors Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products, Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon, Ningxia Mineral & Chemical and Shanxi Sincere Industrial, are appealing the case (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. U.S., CIT #20-00007).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 20 extended the time to conclude mediation in a case involving the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusions until Feb. 15, 2022. The plaintiffs, Voetsalpine High Performance Metals Corp. and Edro Specialty Steels, brought their case to CIT to contest the denial of 502 exclusion requests for high alloyed specialty steel products (see 2110010032). As he did in six other contested exclusion denials, Judge M. Miller Baker sent the cases to mediation before Judge Leo Gordon (Voestalpine High Performance Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00093).

The Commerce Department can reduce an antidumping duty review respondent's U.S. price by the amount of their Section 232 duties paid, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 20 opinion. Commerce also doesn't have to notify the respondent that it intends to reduce the U.S. price by the amount of the Section 232 duties paid since notice and comment procedures don't apply to antidumping administrative procedures, Judge Jane Restani said.

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

The Court of International Trade denied surety company American Home Assurance Co.'s bid to stay proceedings in a case in which the U.S. government is seeking to collect antidumping duties on canned mushrooms from China imported between 2000 and 2001. AHAC wanted proceedings stayed until a resolution is reached in another case that also deals with when the statute of limitations runs out on when the U.S. can collect payments on customs bonds. The DOJ opposed the stay bid, arguing that it would be harmed due to its ongoing discovery efforts (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175). DOJ is seeking to recover a customs bond for unpaid antidumping duties on the mushrooms from China, arguing that sureties are liable for paying the unpaid duties. CIT already ordered the parties to conduct discovery to find if AHAC suffered actual harm as a result of the government's "extensive delay" in issuing the bills for the duties after the entries were liquidated. In addition to opposing the stay motion on grounds that it would harm this current discovery period (see 2112100061), DOJ also said AHAC failed to show any hardship in being required to move forward with discovery.

The Court of International Trade suspended four cases brought by Keystone Automotive Operations, placing them under a test case also brought by Keystone, in a Dec. 20 order. In its complaint, Keystone argued that CBP was incorrect to not extend a Section 301 tariff exclusion on side protective attachments for cars onto the importer's entries. Next up in the case is the discovery period, which is set to wrap up by Sept. 30, 2022 (Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00215). The four suspended cases are #21-00232, #21-00273, #21-00300 and #21-00349.

An extension of the scheduling order isn't needed in a countervailing duty case, brought by The Mosaic Company, after the Court of International Trade granted a litigant's motion to amend its complaint to add a new claim, the litigants told the court in a Dec. 17 letter. Consolidated plaintiff Industrial Group Phosphorite sought to amend its complaint in the action to add a single count challenging the Commerce Department's de facto specificity determination over the alleged natural gas subsidy program. In a Nov. 19 order, Judge Jane Restani granted the amendment despite opposition from other litigants (The Mosaic Company, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00117). The overarching case concerns Commerce's final results in the countervailing duty investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia. In the letter to Restani, though, Mosaic said that it conferred with the other parties, and they all agreed that no further amendment to the briefing schedule is necessary. "In light of that argument’s short length, and considering February 2022 deadlines Mosaic faces in other cases before the Court that would necessitate substantial extensions of the deadlines in this case if extensions were to be of any practical value, Mosaic believes amendment of the scheduling order is not warranted at this time," the letter said.