The Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty case brought by Nucor Corp. should not be considered in a separate CVD case led by Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. For starters, the remand results -- which saw Commerce decide not to treat a CVD respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier -- have not been sustained, but even if they were, the trade court is not bound by judgments of other CIT judges, the government said. Also, the analysis in the Nucor case deals with particular companies and is specific to that case (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00565).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision upholding President Donald Trump's imposition of Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and aluminum derivative products provides further evidence that exporter Oman Fasteners will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction in an antidumping duty case, Oman Fasteners argued. Filing a motion to take judicial notice at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7, the exporter said that in light of the Federal Circuit's decision it will be required to pay the Section 232 duties on its steel nails entered after Feb. 8, 2020 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Court of International Trade erred by relying on information not presented to the Commerce Department in a scope case, misinterpreting the International Trade Commission's findings in the original injury proceeding and mischaracterizing statements in other ITC cases, appellant Wheatland Tube Co. argued in a Feb. 3 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe's arguments supporting the CIT's analysis "are unpersuasive," since they ignore the plain language of the relevant antidumping duty order, the brief said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).
The Commerce Department has the statutory authority to carry out expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 7 amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S was invited to file the amicus brief by the Federal Circuit after it failed to appear regularly in the case. Taking the court up on its offer, the government claimed that the Commerce Department had preexisting authority for the regulation under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, though even if this preexisting structure did not exist, the URAA itself along with the Statement of Administrative Action's statements provide authority for expedited CVD reviews (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade held oral arguments on Feb. 7 in the massive litigation over the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs. During the nearly two-hour affair, Judges Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves probed the parties' positions on whether the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative complied with the Administrative Procedure Act by properly considering comments made on the proposed tariffs when imposing the duties on $500 billion of Chinese goods (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).
President Donald Trump legally expanded the Section 232 national security tariffs to include steel and aluminum "derivative" products despite implementing the expansion beyond procedural deadlines laid out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a Feb. 7 opinion. Relying on the appellate court's opinion in Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said that the president can adjust the tariffs beyond these time limits if it relates to the original plan of action laid out in the initial Section 232 tariff action, the Federal Circuit said that the expansion of the tariffs was related to the original plan.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department failed to support its finding that the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration conferred a non-measurable benefit in a countervailing duty proceeding involving goods from South Korea, CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a Feb. 3 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nucor also railed against Commerce's decision not to conduct verification of the South Korean government's questionnaire responses (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT #23-00003).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 6 order denied defendant-intervenor Endura Products' motion for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case brought by Columbia Aluminum Products, pending the resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the stay motion failed to show that it would serve the twin objectives of "fairness to the litigants and judicial economy."