Jacob Kopnick

Judge Claire Kelly at the Court of International Trade probed the Commerce Department's process of determining whether surrogate country data is aberrational in antidumping cases, during May 19 oral arguments. In a case where she granted a motion for reconsideration following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling on a nearly identical issue, Kelly questioned Commerce's lack of clear criteria and "know it when I see it" approach.

The Court of International Trade denied a stay of court proceedings in one antidumping challenge brought by South Korean steel exporter SeAH Steel, but it has yet to rule on a motion to stay in separate challenge by the same company. In a May 18 order, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves shut the door on the possibility of a stay in a case challenging the final results of the 2016-17 antidumping duty administrative review of certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea, but did not comment on a case challenging the 2017-18 administrative review of the same product. In the latter case, Choe-Groves filed a letter last week informing the parties that the court is considering a stay pending a final decision in the appeal of a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether a particular market situation (PMS) existed in South Korea for the subject merchandise during the 2015-16 review period (see 2105140028).

A group of surety trade associations' attempt to file an amicus curiae brief in support of American Home Assurance Company in the Court of International Trade hit a snag when the Department of Justice opposed their filing. Though DOJ said it does not normally oppose such requests as an amicus brief, it nonetheless moved to block the brief, arguing it was untimely filed, in a May 19 memo. The surety groups consist of the Customs Surety Association, the Customs Surety Coalition, the International Trade Surety Association, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, Inc. and the Surety & Fidelity Association of America.

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

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

The Court of International Trade ruled that a shipment of 443 bales of secondhand clothing imported by DIS Vintage should be classified as “commingled goods” and subject to the “highest rate of duty for any part thereof,” siding with the government in a May 17 opinion. Judge Timothy Reif, after a government analysis of 41 samples of the subject merchandise, determined that nine weren't classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6309 as “worn clothing and other worn articles” since they had no visible signs of appreciable wear.

Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corporation along with consolidated plaintiff Husteel Co., Nexteel Co., AJU Besteel and Iljin Steel Corporation, argued against a government motion in the Court of International Trade to stay proceedings in an antidumping duty case until the Federal Circuit rules on a similar question in a separate case. In a May 17 joint opposition brief, the plaintiffs said that the Department of Justice failed to make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the Federal Circuit case, doesn't argue that it would be "irreparably injured" without a stay, and doesn't consider that there is a fair chance the plaintiffs would be injured by the stay.

The Court of International Trade on May 18 sustained a scope revision in antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on steel trailer wheels from China, backing the Commerce Department's addition to the scope in its final determinations of language covering Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) chrome-covered wheels. In a pair of opinions, Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce had authority to determine the scope of its investigations, and found that the agency "provided adequate explanation" for its decision to include PVD chrome wheels. However, Katzmann did remand the cases due to Commerce's retroactive imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties, instructing the agency to assess the duties from the final scope memo that made the scope changes, and not the date of the preliminary determination.

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

The Department of Justice's argument claiming that the Voestalpine USA Corp. and Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel case in the Court of International Trade is beyond the statute of limitations was made improperly and should be disregarded, the importers said in a May 17 surreply to DOJ's motion to dismiss. DOJ made its statute of limitations argument for the first time in its reply brief and not in the motion to dismiss, and in any case a question over the statute of limitations of its argument is not relevant to the court's subject matter jurisdiction counsel for Voestalpine and Bilstein argued (Voestalpine USA Corp. et al v. United States, CIT # 20-03829).