Chinese tire exporters argued against the Commerce Department's choice to only use one mandatory respondent in an antidumping case on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, filing opening briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 11. Exporters and appellants ITG Voma Corporation, Suton Tire Resources, YC Rubber Co. and Mayrun Tyre submitted two briefs in the appeal of a Court of International Trade opinion that determined that the statute allows for Commerce to select only one respondent. The exporters argue this is a misinterpretation of the law, citing the language of the governing statute, which includes the plural terms "exporters" or "producers."

A domestic producer initiated a challenge to the Commerce Department's countervailing duty determination on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco, in the Court of International Trade, arguing that the agency failed to properly consider four subsidy programs from the Moroccan government (GOM). In a May 12 complaint, The Mosaic Co., said it wants the court to grant relief on a slew of mistakes made by Commerce in the investigation, including its determination that value-added tax exemptions, the provision of the phosphogypsum waste disposal program and VAT refunds did not constitute benefits to the mandatory respondent in the CVD investigation.

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

The Court of International Trade sustained remand results in an antidumping investigation of whether a sale of steel flanges from Indian exporter Chandan Steel Limited should be excluded from its home market sales database when determining its antidumping duty margin, in a May 13 opinion. The Coalition of American Flange Producers, petitioners in the investigation, argued that Commerce had improperly come to the conclusion to exclude one sale from Chandan's home market database because Commerce failed to show that Chandan knew its sales were for export. In deciding if Chandan knew of its shipment's destination, Commerce considered three pieces of evidence: 1) the export quality packaging provision of the shipment, 2) Chandan's treatment of the shipment's logo and 3) the final payment and delivery terms of the sale. In all three cases, the court upheld Commerce's rationale for finding that all the evidence shows Chandan intended to export its steel flange shipment. For instance, the agency found that the logo on the shipment was consistent with goods sent to foreign markets "because sales to Indian customers and other customers abroad generally had different markings."

The Department of Justice requested a stay of proceedings in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, arguing that there is significant overlap with a case currently before the Federal Circuit on the issue of whether a particular market situation existed in South Korea for the product in question. Filing for the stay in a case brought by SeAH Steel Corporation challenging the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea, DOJ said that the Federal Circuit's decision will answer one of the central questions in SeAH's lawsuit, and would "likely streamline the issues in the case" (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT # 19-00086). Plaintiffs do not consent to the stay request.

The Commerce Department failed to substantiate the quantity of fish meal and fish oil byproducts when granting a byproduct offset in a remand of an antidumping case, the defendant intervenor, the Catfish Farmers of America, argued in the Court of International Trade. Opposing remand results in a May 11 filing in CIT, CFA said Commerce's decision to flip its byproduct offset ruling on plaintiff NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co.'s fish meal and fish oil products was contrary to agency practice and the law. The decision to grant the offset failed to “substantiate” byproduct production and used “unreasonable surrogates to value NTSF's fish meal and oil by-product offsets,” CFA argued. NTSF agreed with the remand results in its own comments.

The Department of Defense has agreed to a final order dropping the designation of Chinese consumer electronics giant Xiaomi Corporation as a Communist Chinese Military Company (CCMC), according to a May 11 joint status report filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Xiaomi supports the order, the report said, leaving the parties to negotiate over specifics before a final proposed order is to be submitted on or before May 20.

Since CBP seized a shipment of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine and did not subject it to deemed exclusion from entry, a case challenging the seizure does not have jurisdiction in the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a May 12 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Importer Root Sciences argues that since it received a notice of seizure after the date of deemed exclusion, its shipment was deemed excluded from entry and thus warranting of jurisdiction in CIT, but citing past court precedent, DOJ said that notice of seizure is not the date of seizure, declaring that "a seizure necessarily occurs prior to the date on which Customs issues the notice of seizure," (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).

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

Mexican steel exporter Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. says that since Section 232 tariffs on Mexican steel and aluminum were made in violation of certain procedural requirements, they should not be deducted from the exporter's U.S. price when determining its antidumping margin. In a May 10 motion for summary judgment in a case at the Court of International Trade, Deacero also argued that since the tariffs are remedial and temporary, they are not ordinary customs duties and are thus excluded from antidumping duty calculations (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03924).