The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Alternative characteristics used by the Commerce Department that were supplied by antidumping duty respondent LG Chem to set control numbers (CONNUMs) in an AD investigation had no relationship to actual prices and costs, and are distortive and create the potential for manipulation, AD petitioner The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers said in a Feb. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00010).
"Post hoc" arguments from the Commerce Department and BlueScope Steel that the Australian exporter's deduction of antidumping duties from a transfer price was not a reimbursement of antidumping duties are contradicted by documents that confirm a deduction of the duties from the price BlueScope Steel charged to an affiliated importer, plaintiff-appellant U.S. Steel Corp. argued in a Feb. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).
The U.S. on Feb. 17 filed a customs penalty case against importer Fortune Energy, saying that the company falsely declared its aluminum extrusions as not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties when they should have been entered as Type 03. Alleging negligent violations of Section 1592, the government seeks a $120,004.30 penalty, based on double the amount of duties avoided by the importer (U.S. v. Fortune Energy, CIT # 23-00040).
The Commerce Department illegally reversed its initial decision that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. was not affiliated with its primary fresh lemon supplier on the grounds that the company had no close supplier relationship with the lemon grower, U.S. company Ventura Coastal argued in a Feb. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade. In the complaint, Ventura also railed against Commerce's decision to exclude certain administrative expenses pertaining to services provided by Louis Dreyfus' parent company or affiliated holding companies from the exporter's general and administrative expense rate calculation (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 17 opinion set aside a March 2022 decision in a customs spat over reimported swimsuits to hear an additional argument from the U.S., though the court ultimately reached the same conclusion.
The Commerce Department gave a further explanation as to why its significant changes practice pertaining to successorship applies in a countervailing duty changed circumstances review where the predecessor company was not individually examined. Submitting remand results on Feb. 16 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce cited its standard established in the 2009 Pasta from Turkey CVD CCR to claim that it will make an affirmative successorship finding "only where there is no evidence of significant changes in the requesting party's operations, ownership, corporate or legal structure." This was not the case with plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's (RYAM's) lumber mills, the agency said (GreenFirst Forest Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00097).
The Commerce Department improperly used only one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Feb. 16 opinion. Citing a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that held Commerce may not use just one respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review, Judge Timothy Stanceu sent back the agency's respondent selection decision. The judge also blasted Commerce's use of an adverse facts available rate, taken from the petitioner after the one respondent backed out of the investigation, which the agency used for the non-individually selected respondents and the all-others rate.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
U.S. steelmakers Nucor, Steel Dynamics, SSAB Enterprises and Cleveland-Cliffs should not be allowed to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding, plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari argued in a series of three Feb. 15 briefs at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).