Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, had to file a protest to properly establish jurisdiction to challenge the liquidation of its entries, DOJ argued in an April 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to SIS's arguments that there was nothing to protest at the time since the countervailing duty rate was not final, DOJ said that this position is incorrect since the importer should have moved to suspend liquidation during the CVD review. Failing to do so precluded the ability to judicially challenge the liquidations, the brief said (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department found on remand that antidumping duty respondent Power Steel Co. did not pay Section 232 duties on two entries of steel concrete rebar, dropping the duties paid as part of the exporter's sales price used to establish its base export price in an antidumping duty administrative review. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on April 8, Commerce lowered Power Steel's dumping margin from 3.27% to 0.01%, locking in a finding that Power Steel did not make sales at less than normal value (Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03771).
The Commerce Department granted a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey (Prolamsa) on remand at the Court of International Trade, reversing course from its previous position. Finding that the totality of evidence supports the position that Prolamsa made sales at two levels of trade, Commerce dropped Prolamsa's dumping rate from 7.47% to 0.89% (Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT #20-00166).
Three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit probed the question of whether a group of U.S. steel companies, led by U.S. Steel Corp., could intervene in a spate of cases challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny certain importers exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. During an April 7 oral argument, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and Judges Pauline Newman and Todd Hughes expressed serious doubt as to whether the steel companies could join the exclusion challenges (California Steel Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred in using an allocation method for Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's (SMPC) certification expenses that covered the whole period of review, SMPC said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By doing so, Commerce violated its own practice of using the most detailed transaction-specific expense data and distorted the data, the exporter said (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT #22-00107).
Arguments from antidumping plaintiffs, led by Wilmar Trading, looking to invoke a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion on whether a particular market situation exists "significantly overstates" the case's relevance, DOJ said in an April 7 reply brief (Wilmar Trading PTE v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00121).
Section 232 steel tariffs paid by importer North American Interpipe should be deducted from its U.S. price in an antidumping proceeding, the importer, along with its Ukrainian manufacturer, argued in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Taking a novel approach to this position -- which has been routinely defeated at CIT -- Interpipe said the national security tariffs should be deducted due to their tentative nature given that a number of exclusion requests were retroactively granted in a separate CIT case challenging the exclusion denials (Interpipe Ukraine v. U.S., CIT #22-00066).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit signaled during an April 6 oral argument that whether a country is a non-market economy would not stand as a criterion in determining whether to grant an import first sale valuation. Responding to arguments from John Peterson, counsel for importer and plaintiff Meyer Corp. and Beverly Farrell of DOJ, three Federal Circuit judges -- Judge Todd Hughes in particular -- said that it was unlikely the government would succeed in defending the use of this criterion in customs law, as non-market economy principle is reserved for trade remedy laws (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).