The Commerce Department must reconsider or further explain its decision not to investigate off-peak electricity provided for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade held in an Oct. 5 opinion made public Oct.12. Judge Mark Barnett also sent back Commerce's failure to attribute subsidies to a respondent that had been given to the respondent's affiliate in connection with the purchase of steel scrap and a fixed asset. However, Barnett did uphold the agency's decision not to attribute the affiliate's subsidies in connection with the provision of services, raw materials and other fixed assets.
India told the World Trade Organization Oct. 11 that it initiated a safeguard investigation on poly vinyl chloride suspension resin with residual vinyl chloride monomer above two parts per million, the WTO announced. India started the investigation Sept. 16 and said all interested parties can make their views on the matter known within 30 days from Sept. 16 to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Users of the U.S. judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (Pacer) system could see full refunds of fees paid to access federal court documents, according to a settlement agreement among three nonprofits and the federal judiciary submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The terms of the settlement set aside $125 million to establish a common fund to automatically reimburse more than 400,000 Pacer class users up to $350 for any fees paid April 21, 2010, to May 31, 2018. Users who paid over $350 during that period will receive a pro rata share of the remaining settlement funds, the proposed settlement said (National Veterans Legal Services Program v. U.S., D.D.C. #16-00745).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 12 confidential opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. In a text-only order, Judge Claire Kelly ordered Commerce to reconsider its position that the KAV program -- a concession fee ordinance program for public transport routes -- is a specific subsidy, and its rate calculations for the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act. Kelly, in a letter to litigants, gave parties to the case until Oct. 19 to review the confidential information in the opinion (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. United States, CIT #21-00080).
ITC Should Disqualify Buchanan From Injury Proceeding Based on Partner's 'Betrayal,' Importer Argues
The International Trade Commission should disqualify Daniel Pickard, chair of Buchanan Ingersoll's International Trade & National Security Practice Group, from participating as counsel for the petitioner to an International Trade Commission injury investigation given his ethical violations, counsel for Amstead Rail Co. said in an Oct. 11 letter.
Colombia and the EU initiated an arbitration proceeding at the World Trade Organization to look over a dispute panel's findings in a proceeding on Colombia's antidumping duties on frozen fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, the WTO said. Colombia circulated the notice of appeal Oct. 10 and started the arbitration proceeding under Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
US Reply Makes It 'Crystal Clear' That Commerce Illegally Denied Section 232 Exclusions, NLMK Argues
The U.S. made it "crystal clear" that "no decision-maker could have reasonably" found that the U.S. industry made certain steel slabs in enough quantity to warrant rejecting steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's requests for Section 232 tariff exclusions, NLMK argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ argued that the Commerce Department's regulations on quality criterion exclude the consideration of slab size when determining if there's enough capacity to make the merchandise in question in the U.S. NLMK said that argument contradicts the language of the regulation itself and is "nonsense on its face" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: