Jacob Kopnick

The U.S.' voluntary remand request in two Section 232 exclusion cases should be denied in its current form since the government's delayed, tranched solution is "unconscionable," steel importers Allegheny Technologies Inc. and California Steel Industries argued in an Aug. 16 reply brief. Given that Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests are supposed to be decided within 106 days, the Commerce Department's proposed nine to 12 month schedule to reconsider CSI's exclusion requests is "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale, CSI argued (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923)(California Steel Industries, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00015).

Target's attempt to fight off the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss a customs case at the Court of International Trade falls flat, DOJ argued in an Aug. 13 reply brief. Following practices codified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, CIT properly ordered the reliquidation of improperly liquidated ironing tables from China, DOJ said, backing the court's authority to do so (Target Corp. v. U.S., CIT #21-00162).

Antidumping petitioner U.S. Steel Corporation and the two mandatory respondents in the contested antidumping duty review, SeAH Steel Co. and NEXTEEL Co., submitted their comments on the Commerce Department's remand results at the Court of International Trade. U.S. Steel spoke out against Commerce's flip on its finding of a particular market situation for South Korean steel while the respondents argued against the agency's reallocation of suspended product line and inventory valuation losses to general and administrative expenses and Commerce's decision to deduct a portion of SeAH's G&A expenses of a U.S. affiliate for further manufacturing costs (SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).

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

The Commerce Department does not need to "poll the industry" to find out if over half of the domestic industry supports an antidumping or countervailing duty petition, Judge Leo Gordon of the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 16 letter. Responding to consolidated plaintiff M S International's request for a remand directing Commerce to poll the industry or "collect additional information establishing whether there was industry support" for the contested AD/CVD petition, Gordon said this request stemmed from a misunderstanding of the law (Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00127).

Mexican steel company Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and its U.S. affiliate moved to stay proceedings in its case at the Court of International Trade pending the appeal of a related matter at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 12 stay motion. Deacero wants action halted in its case until the Universal Steel Prod., Inc. et al. v. U.S. case has a decision at the Federal Circuit. While Deacero's case challenges the Commerce Department's findings in an antidumping duty review on the grounds that the agency's treatment of Section 232 duties paid by Deacero as ordinary customs duties and deduction from U.S. price are unsupported, the Universal Steel case has broader implications and would eliminate the need for Deacero to litigate the claims.

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

The Commerce Department properly calculated antidumping duty review mandatory respondent LG Chem's cost of production (COP) when calculating constructed price, the Court of International Trade said in an Aug. 13 opinion. In a case over the antidumping duty investigation into acetone from South Korea, Judge M. Miller Baker held that Commerce's decision to spurn LG Chem's method for calculating the cost of the materials for making acetone in favor of the method used by the other mandatory respondent, Kumho P&B Chemical, was legal. This decision led to a higher antidumping rate for LG Chem in the investigation's final determination, sticking the exporter with a 25.05% rate. Baker also found that Commerce's rejection of certain of LG Chem's factual submissions was "harmless" and therefore permitted.

Ribbons exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. did not benefit from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Commerce Department said in Aug. 13 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's new determination, filed under respectful protest, led to the reconsideration of its use of adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review and subsequent exclusion of the AFA rate assigned to the EBCP for Yama. Commerce did, however, continue to find that the provision of synthetic yarn and caustic soda for "less than adequate remuneration" did meet the specificity requirement of the law and are deemed countervailable subsidies (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. U.S., CIT #19-00047).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should find that pencil importer Prime Time Commerce did not exhaust its administrative remedies by failing to comment on the Commerce Department's remand results in the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice told the appellate court. Despite its five attempts to obtain “gap-filling” information necessary to determine the correct antidumping rate in an administrative review, Prime Time did not comment on the case's remand results, meaning the importer stands in violation of the exhaustion doctrine that precludes judicial review, DOJ said in its reply brief (Prime Time Commerce, LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1783).