The Commerce Department ignored the Court of International Trade's and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's instructions when it continued to rely on the "likely selling price" of non-prime goods to set rates in an antidumping duty case, exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke said in a March 15 brief responding to Commerce's remand results. Dillinger says the agency continued to use facts otherwise available even after the trade court ruled it unsupported, arguing Commerce must instead use the company's actual data (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158).
Mediation in an antidumping duty case will not result in a quicker resolution nor would it help in reaching a resolution, DOJ said in a March 16 motion opposing Japanese exporter Nagase & Co.'s bid for court-annexed mediation. DOJ said it looked at the issues of the case and decided not to request a voluntary remand. As such, it intends to fight Nagase's characterization of the issues, meaning the best way to handle the case will be to "simply brief and decide the claims on their merits," the U.S. said (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).
Antidumping duty respondents Best Mattresses International Company's and Rose Lion Furniture Company's challenge of the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis should be tossed since the DPA did not injure the plaintiffs, DOJ said in a March 11 brief at the Court of International Trade. Since the DPA ultimately found that no "masked" dumping was occurring, the use of the analysis, which is based on a statistical test called into question by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year, did not give Best Mattresses and Rose Lion any standing to challenge it, the U.S. argued (Best Mattresses International Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00281).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied on March 16 U.S. pipe maker Welspun Tubular's motion for rehearing in a case on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in an antidumping duty proceeding. The appellate court issued a two-page order denying the en banc rehearing motion without a further explanation (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
DOJ joined a motion to dismiss a countervailing duty case originally filed by CVD petitioner Dextar Wheels arguing that the Court of International Trade cannot order the Commerce Department to correct something it did not do in the first place. Filing its own motion to dismiss on March 15, DOJ said that the plaintiff, steel wheel importer Rimco, failed to make a claim on which relief can be granted since Commerce did not even establish an all-others rate in a CVD review -- precisely what Rimco is challenging (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).
The Court of International Trade should disregard DOJ's motion to dismiss Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's challenge to antidumping duty cash deposit instructions since an already initiated USMCA panel would not be able to apply the proper remedy, the exporter said in a March 14 reply brief. Though the USMCA panel is reviewing the same legal issue raised at CIT, the relief available differs in that the USMCA panels do not have the power to issue an injunction, J.D. Irving said (J.D. Irving Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00641).
Importer Root Sciences was denied on March 15 its motion for reconsideration of a Court of International Trade ruling that CBP's seizure of Root's imports precluded a deemed exclusion, stripping the court of jurisdiction over the case. Judge Gary Katzmann said that because the reconsideration motion "amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the court’s reasoning on matters fully litigated, devoid of showing manifest error, it is insufficient to warrant reconsideration and is denied."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should affirm the Commerce Department's finding that Al Ghurair Iron & Steel circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) products from China by way of transshipment via the United Arab Emirates, defendant-appellee Steel Dynamics said March 14 in a reply brief filed with the appeals court. The UAE company's processing was minor or insignificant, marked by a low level of investment in the UAE, Steel Dynamics said (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1199).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.