The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 18 order upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to an AD order's revocation. The trade court said the Commerce Department did not abuse its discretion when enforcing the filing deadline. The appellate court affirmed without an opinion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 18 order upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling in a case on the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia. At the trade court, Commerce reversed the outcome of the actual investigation, leading to a lack of countervailable subsidization and a rescinding of the order.
The Commerce Department properly found that window wall system kits imported by Reflection Window + Wall are excluded from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Jan. 18 order. Judge Stephen Vaden held that Commerce appropriately held that the window wall systems qualified for the "finished goods kit" exclusion to the orders and were properly distinguished from curtain wall units. The judge added that the scope ruling does not cut against past scope decisions.
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 18 opinion sent back an antidumping review over the Commerce Department's decision to reject AD petitioner Nucor Tubular's ministerial error comments as untimely. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the exception to the requirement that comments be timely filed applies in this case since Commerce's "unintentional errors became apparent only in the Final Results" of the AD review. Since Nucor should have been allowed to submit its comments on the ministerial error, the court remanded the review to consider the error "and respond accordingly," the judge said.
The Commerce Department erred when it treated Section 232 steel and aluminum duties as ordinary customs duties and deducted them from antidumping duty respondent Borusan's export price and constructed export price, the respondent argued in a Jan. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #23-00005).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 13 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request in an antidumping duty case. Commerce wanted the remand period to review the non-selected respondents' rate in an AD review since the rate was based on the prior administrative review's rate, which was changed after separate litigation at the trade court (Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00006).
The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 16 paperless order denied a U.S. motion to exclude live testimony from plaintiff Oman Fasteners' CEO, Seve Karaga, in an antidumping duty case. The court said that Oman Fasteners can call Karaga to testify at the Jan. 23 hearing over the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, though the testimony "shall be confined to the facts set forth in his declaration attached to Plaintiffs motion" (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).
The Court of International Trade should have allowed a company that filed an attorney conflict-of-interest suit involving an International Trade Commission AD/CVD injury proceeding to amend its allegations to comply with the court's opinion, rather than dismissing the case outright with leave to file under a different jurisdictional provision, said the company, Amstead Rail Co., in an opening brief filed Jan. 13 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Amsted Rail Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The International Trade Commission used an incorrect interpretation of the word "likely" when finding that revoking the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia would likely lead to the recurrence of material injury to the domestic U.S. industry within a reasonably foreseeable time, Australian exporter BlueScope Steel argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade Jan. 13, BlueScope also said the ITC erred by cumulating Australian imports with other countries' imports in the injury review (BlueScope Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00353).