The Commerce Department properly fixed an error in its liquidation instructions, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion sustaining the agency's remand results in an antidumping review. Fixing the name of one of the mandatory respondents that received its own rate in the review, Commerce's remand allowed the respondent -- Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. -- to receive the proper rate on its entries.

Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company is appealing an October Court of International Trade opinion sustaining the Commerce Department's decision to drop a particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test. According to a Dec. 17 notice of appeal, Wheatland Tube will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case concerns the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. The trade court originally found that the statute does not permit a PMS adjustment to a respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test (see 2110190054). This interpretation was recently upheld by the Federal Circuit, which found that such an adjustment is only permitted when calculating constructed value (see 2112100039) (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00107).

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

The Commerce Department dropped its particular market situation adjustment to two antidumping respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test in Dec. 15 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. If sustained, the result would cause the dumping rates for the respondents -- HiSteel Co. and Kukje Steel Co. -- to drop to 9.90% and 1.91%, respectively. The move by Commerce is one many in response to prior CIT opinions finding it illegal to make a PMS adjustment to the COP in a sales-below-cost test. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld this principle in a precedential opinion (see 2112100039) (HiSteel Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00146).

The Court of International Trade extended on Dec. 16 a mediation period in three cases contesting the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests, until Feb. 15. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the notice of appearance for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's counsel in the company's appeal of an evasion finding to not be in compliance with the court's rules. Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, the attorney listed on Royal Brush's Entry of Appearance, had not registered for an electronic filer account with the Federal Circuit's filing system. The form must be resubmitted once Oleynik has an electronic filing account, the notice said (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that two entries of appearance for Department of Justice attorney Robert Kiepura are not in compliance with court rules, the Federal Circuit said in two Dec. 15 notices. The entry documents were filed after the cases had been assigned to a merits panel, so in order for them to be properly added to the cases, Kiepura must first file a motion for leave to appear, the appellate court said. One case is appealing a July 2020 Court of International Trade decision that upheld the Commerce Department's termination of an old suspension agreement on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (Confederacion de Asociaciones v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2232). The other is challenging a September 2020 decision dismissing a challenge to the final antidumping duty determination on fresh tomatoes from Mexico (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2265).

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made a splash when it said that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping review respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value (see 2112100039). This opinion surfaced in two Court of International Trade cases also contesting Commerce's PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test via a pair of supplemental authority notices (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consl. #20-03868) (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

Mediation at the Court of International Trade in six consolidated cases over Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion denials failed to produce a settlement, the court said in a Dec. 14 report. The mediation, held by Judge Leo Gordon, was ordered after the consolidated plaintiffs' request for a status conference was denied as moot. The plaintiffs wanted the status conference to discuss the availability of a remedy for already-liquidated entries (Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00027).