The Court of International Trade on Dec. 6 upheld the Commerce Department's finding of no particular market situation for hot-rolled coil steel in an antidumping duty review on welded line pipe from South Korea. Judge Claire Kelly also upheld Commerce's decision to recalculate respondent Nexteel's costs without making a non-prime product adjustment and revise the non-examined companies' rate. However, the judge again remanded the agency's further explanation of its classification of Nexteel's suspended production line costs.
DOJ briefs in the massive Section 301 litigation don't demonstrate that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative considered "major objections contemporaneously with its decisions" to impose the lists 3 and 4A tariffs, the plaintiffs argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While USTR relies on presidential direction as the post hoc justification of its decisions, the court already ruled that out as a means of satisfying the Administrative Procedure Act, the brief said. To now satisfy the APA, the U.S. may take new action, but the lists 3 and 4A tariffs may not stay in place based on "conclusory and post hoc rationales," the plaintiffs said (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT #21-00052).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department properly granted antidumping duty respondents a constructed export price offset in an AD review, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 5 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While AD petitioner Wheatland Tube "is correct" in arguing that the party seeking the offset has the burden of establishing the amount and nature of a particular adjustment, Commerce in this case reasonably found that "due to prior practice in this proceeding of accepting comparable information and analyses as sufficient to grant a CEP offset that Commerce should continue to grant a CEP offset in this review" (Wheatland Tube v. United States, CIT #22-00160).
Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty review challenge at the Court of International Trade, led by Grupo Simec, filed their opposition on Dec. 2 to the Commerce Department's move to add a memorandum to the administrative record. The plaintiffs said the move to add the memo -- a questionnaire deficiencies analysis for AD respondent Grupo Simec -- more than four months after the record closed was illegal because the document had never been "filed, published" or otherwise sent to the parties (Grupo Simec v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
The U.S. filed new charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act against Javier Aguilar, a former oil and commodities trader at Vitol, accusing the Mexico and Houston resident of conspiracy to violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions for schemes in Ecuador and Mexico. The case against Aguilar was originally brought to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in 2020 solely for the Ecuadorian bribery scheme (see 2009230016). The new indictment now lays out five counts against Aguilar, four for FCPA violations and one for money laundering (U.S. v. Javier Aguilar, E.D.N.Y. #20-00390).
Colorado-based Ellab Inc. and its Danish parent company, Ellab A/S, paid the U.S. over $700,000 to settle charges that it failed to pay customs duties on imports of thermal validation equipment, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado announced Dec. 1. The U.S. alleged Ellab failed to classify its imports and properly declare their value, neglecting to pay the full amount of the duties owed on the goods.
The U.S. and Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Texarkana Aluminum "failed to address the determinations challenged by" plaintiff AA Metals "in any meaningful way, often ignoring or misconstruing the issues" in the case and playing a "game of gotcha," AA Metals argued in a Dec. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. In particular, the U.S. pushed "the same flawed analysis" from the Commerce Department's scope finding by arguing that certain [redacted] temper products are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 2 order, denied a petition from plaintiff-appellants ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings Co. for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a case over whether a protest is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).
The Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on antidumping respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. since the agency failed to notify the respondent about the supposed deficiencies in its submissions, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 2 opinion. Saha Thai omitted sales of line pipe from its U.S. sales database, claiming that line pipe is not within the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. Judge Stephen Vaden found that Commerce did not notify the respondent that its sales database was deficient, remanding the use of AFA. If Commerce continues to use AFA on remand, it must ensure that it complies with the notice requirement, the judge ruled.