The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia covering entries in 2016-2017, in a Nov. 30 confidential opinion. The case, filed by mandatory respondent BlueScope Steel Ltd., challenged the final results for hitting BlueScope with adverse facts available. The seven-count action alleged, among other things, that Commerce's decision to apply AFA based on the fact that BlueScope withheld requested information is contradicted by record evidence. In a letter submitted to the litigants, Judge Richard Eaton said he wants bracketed information reviewed by Dec. 7 (BlueScope Steel Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00057).

Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. will appeal an October Court of International Trade opinion that upheld CBP's finding that it evaded antidumping duties on cased pencils from China, according to a Nov. 29 notice of appeal. The pencil importer will appeal the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CIT originally remanded the case to CBP after finding that the customs agency did not provide adequate public summaries of business confidential information during the evasion investigation. Chief Judge Mark Barnett then upheld the evasion determination after finding that CBP cleared this hurdle and that the summaries did not violate Royal Brush's due process rights (see 2111010036) (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00198).

Surety company American Home Assurance Company wants a stay in its case, brought by the U.S., in which the government is seeking to collect antidumping duties on entries of canned mushrooms from China brought in between 2000 and 2001, according to its Nov. 26 motion at the Court of International Trade. Filed without consent from the Department of Justice, AHAC wants all proceedings halted in the lawsuit until the court renders a judgment in a similar case, United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, currently pending before Judge Stephen Vaden (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

The Commerce Department erred by including both research and development expenses for non-subject goods and "compensation for payment" expenses for non-subject merchandise in the general and administrative (G&A) expense calculation during an antidumping duty review, exporter Nagase and Co. said in a Nov. 24 complaint. Filing its case at the Court of International Trade, Nagase also pushed back against the Commerce Department's calculation of the assessment rate (Nagase & Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Nov. 29 following its decision sustaining the Commerce Department's decision to hit antidumping respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co. with adverse facts available. The appellate court upheld a Court of International Trade decision in a case over the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea, which also sustained Commerce's decision to cancel verification of Hyundai's information (see 2110040030) (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co., Ltd. v. United States, et al., Fed. Cir. #21-1009).

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

The antidumping and countervailing duties that importer Fedmet Resources now has to pay as a result of a CBP duty evasion ruling amounts to an "embargo" and deprives Fedmet of market access, the importer argued in a Nov. 19 brief at the Court of International Trade. Further, CBP violated Fedmet's due process rights by not even notifying the importer of the existence of the investigation until the interim measures were put in place and not giving it an opportunity to respond to evidence against it, the brief said (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

The Court of International Trade illegally substituted its judgment for the Commerce Department's when it found that the application of total adverse facts available was not backed by substantial evidence, antidumping duty petitioner and defendant-appellant ABB Enterprise Software argued in its Nov. 22 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error backed disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases, ABB said (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).

The Court of International Trade committed a logical error when it dismissed a steel importer's and purchaser's bid to reliquidate two entries subject to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, the importer and purchaser said in a brief attempting to keep their case alive. Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, the purchaser, and Voestalpine USA, the importer, moved for a reconsideration of CIT's decision, which held that 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 through a protest or an extension of liquidation (Voestalpine USA Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03829).