The Commerce Department has the right to select a single mandatory respondent in antidumping proceedings, the Department of Justice said in a June 21 response brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. YC Rubber, Sutong and ITG Voma are appealing their unsuccessful Court of International Trade challenge of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In its brief, DOJ says that Commerce is not required by law to examine more than one company individually (YC Rubber Co. (North America) et al. v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1489).

The Commerce Department's recent interpretation of the finished merchandise exemption to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China led to the "same absurd results" the agency originally wanted to avoid in its previous "subassemblies test" interpretation, importer WKW North America argued in a June 21 brief in support of its motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. WKW contests a scope ruling from Commerce that found that the importer's automotive waist finishers, belt moldings and outer waist belts are within the scope of the AD/CVD orders because subassemblies can't qualify for the exemption (WKW North America, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00072).

The Commerce Department, under protest, dropped a cost-based particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping administrative review in June 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. The agency recalculated the weighted-average dumping margins of mandatory respondents Hyundai Steel Company and Husteel Co. in the 2016-17 review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea. Husteel, the plaintiff in the case, received a 6.44% antidumping rate, down from 10.91%, while Hyundai received a 4.82% rate -- down from 8.14% before litigation (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00107).

Dominican aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio SRL will not be allowed to intervene in a Court of International Trade case in which it is alleged to be involved in a transshipment scheme to avoid antidumping duties, according to a June 21 order. Kingtom did not establish that its interest in continuing to sell aluminum extrusions to the importer plaintiffs without duties is an "interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action," as required by the court's rules. Kingtom also did not have a claim that shares with the main action -- a challenge of an Enforce and Protect Act" investigation -- a common question of law or fact (Global Aluminum Distributor LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00198).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Steel exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret will appeal a June 16 Court of International Trade decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 21 notice of appeal. In the decision, Judge Jane Restani sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping administrative review of circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey. The remand results dropped any adjustments made to the sales-below-cost test relating to a particular market situation (see 2106170026). Restani said that PMS adjustments are only allowed when calculating normal value based on constructed value, as opposed to normal value based on home market sales (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00015).

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear Hyundai Heavy Industries' case challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available to set an antidumping duty rate on power transformers from Korea. The court did not explain the June 21 petition denial. Hyundai appealed a 2019 Court of International Trade opinion sustaining Commerce's use of AFA and an opinion-less affirmation of that ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Commerce Department complied with the Court of International Trade's remand instructions in an antidumping case on frozen warmwater shrimp from India by switching from an application of adverse facts available to neutral facts available, the Department of Justice said in June 17 comments on the remand results (Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd., Bay Seafood Pvt. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #19-00201). So far, no parties to the case have taken issue with the remand results, though Commerce submitted them “under respectful protest.” DOJ joins defendant-intervenor and petitioner in the case, Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, in signing off on the remand results (see 2106040074).

Two steel importers, voestalpine USA and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel, want refunds for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties paid on imports of alloy steel since the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security published a Section 232 exclusion with the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule code, they said in a June 18 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Voestalpine and Bilstein say the HTS error was only remedied after the imports had been liquidated and that no protest option was available to apply the exclusions after liquidation (voestalpine USA LLC et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00290).

Opposing sides in the Section 301 litigation sparred heatedly in the closing minutes of oral argument June 17 (see 2106170061) about the role the plaintiffs’ steering committee should play should the Court of International Trade grant the motion of sample-case plaintiffs HMTX and Jasco for a preliminary injunction to freeze the liquidations of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure.