The Court of International Trade in a May 26 order denied the U.S.'s stay bid in an antidumping case, citing harm to plaintiff and exporter Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) that could result from the stay. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "a stay is not appropriate in this case," given that BSM has already successfully challenged four bases for the Commerce Department's finding of dumping and a stay "would significantly devalue" the company's investment in the challenge.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case led by Ellwood City Forge failed to challenge the legality of the questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions until the case reached the Court of International Trade, highlighting their failure to exhaust administrative remedies, exporter Bharat Forge argued. In a reply brief filed May 20, the exporter said the issue was "ripe for consideration" during the AD case, "yet Plaintiffs inexplicably did not raise" it (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. #21-00007).
Anti-circumvention petitioners need to walk a fine line between being inclusive in their definition of the scope of the goods to cover all goods potentially guilty of circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties, and not causing "mischief" at the International Trade Commission by making the scope too broad, said Mary Jane Alves, partner at Cassidy Levy. Speaking during a panel at the Georgetown International Trade Update about the interplay between the Commerce Department and the ITC, Alves, speaking on her own behalf and not for her firm or clients, said that petitions seeking to cover products that are further assembled, blended or processed in the U.S. under anti-circumvention cases can risk having the ITC deem those assemblers, blenders or processors part of the domestic industry.
The Commerce Department's move to not fix a programming error in its antidumping margin calculation, which resulted in "irrelevant third country costs" getting assigned to sold but not produced products, was "unreasonable" and illegal, exporter Navneet Education Ltd. said in a May 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The result of such an error was "an overinflated and inaccurate dumping margin that did not reflect the reality of Navneet's de minimis margin that it should have received," the complaint said (Navneet Education Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00132).
Judge Mark Barnett, chief judge of the Court of International Trade, suggested that videoconferencing, which was rolled out as a salve for judicial proceedings in the face of COVID-19, is here to stay, especially for certain smaller proceedings in various trade cases. Speaking at the Georgetown International Trade Update on May 24, Barnett said that while in-person oral arguments are more in favor with the judges at the trade court, the prospect of continued videoconferencing to handle some smaller issues remains a real possibility for the court as it shifts out of the pandemic restrictions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a May 24 opinion that the Commerce Department improperly hit respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. with adverse facts available over its reporting of service-related revenue. Judges Pauline Newman, Alan Lourie and Timothy Dyk said Hyundai has the right to supplement the record and Commerce cannot claim Hyundai didn't act to the best of its ability in the review since it fully responded to Commerce's requests for further information.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate on May 23 in a classication case affirming a 35% duty rate for StarKist's tuna salad pouches in agreement with CBP's classification following its March 30 opinion that upheld a previous decision by the Court of International Trade (see 2203300033). StarKist challenged CBP's classification under subheading 1604.14.10, which provides for prepared or preserved fish, including tuna, whole or in pieces, "but not minced" and "in oil."
Plaintiff and exporter Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. opposed a group of U.S. steel producers' motion in an antidumping duty case to hold an oral argument, telling the Court of International Trade that the motion is "unnecessary and disingenuous." In the May 20 filing, Prosperity argued that since the case has been going on for six years and the main issue in the case -- the decision to collapse mandatory respondents Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. and Synn Industrial Co. with one of their affiliates, Prosperity -- has been "extensively briefed," the need for oral argument is precluded (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00138).