Building Material Distributors, Inc., consolidated plaintiff in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, will appeal the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to an Aug. 9 notice of appeal (Xi'An Metals & Minerals Import & Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00103). The case was over the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from China in which the Commerce Department applied total adverse facts available. BMD will appeal CIT's contention that Commerce had the right to apply total AFA for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production data on a control number-specific basis (see 2106090048).

The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s motion for remand in an antidumping case since it is unclear whether the court has the authority, plaintiff Pirelli Tyre Co. said in an Aug. 9 brief. Since the proposed reasoning for the voluntary remand revolves around the conduct of a company not party to the case, the court may not have the legal authority to issue such a remand, Pirelli said. Even with such authority, the remand should not be permitted since it is not necessary to achieve the U.S.'s objective and would harm Pirelli's interests, the plaintiff said (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-00115).

The U.S. government will appeal a Court of International Trade decision striking down the expansion of Section 232 national security tariffs to cover steel "derivatives" products to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to an Aug. 7 notice of appeal. The decision, in a case brought by Oman Fasteners, found that the president illicitly announced the tariff expansion after a procedurally required 105-day deadline laid out in the Section 232 statute (see 2106110022). The decision in Oman Fasteners came after the court had already found the tariff expansion to be illegal. That case, PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. U.S., is already making its way through the Federal Circuit (see 2106170058) (Oman Fasteners, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00037).

The Court of International Trade granted on Aug. 6 a consent motion to stay in a case brought by World Wide Packaging in which the company challenged CBP's appraisal of its imports of plastic tubes and caps from China based on the post-importation sale to its downstream U.S. customers. In its motion to stay, World Wide Packaging urged the court to grant its request following a meeting between counsel for the plaintiff and the Department of Justice. "Over the past week, counsel to Plaintiff and Defendant have discussed whether this appeal is susceptible to a stipulated judgment," the motion said. "The parties have agreed to continue these discussions in the weeks ahead. Plaintiff also intends to share a proposed stipulated judgment with Defendant in an effort to reach a negotiated solution. Defendant’s counsel will require time to vet the proposal with his client. Plaintiff’s counsel will also need time to review with their client any competing proposal from Defendant." Lars-Erik Hjelm and Devin Sikes of Akin Gump met with Peter Mancuso of DOJ in the meeting. In return, the court granted the stay until Feb. 7, 2022 (World Wide Packaging, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00189).

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

The Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty investigation did not comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion, plaintiff Nucor Corporation said in Aug. 6 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The remand results "articulate but don't properly apply a standard that would comply with the statutory adequate remuneration standard," Nucor said, opposing Commerce's finding that the South Korean government did not provide a subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel via cheap electricity (POSCO v. United States, CIT #17-00137).

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

Garg Tube Export and Garg Tube Limited want proceedings in their Court of International Trade case stayed until another lawsuit, also filed by Garg Tube Export, is resolved, the plaintiffs said in an Aug. 5 motion. Since both cases concern the Commerce Department's finding of a particular market situation in India for the sale of welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes, the similarity of the legal issues prompts a stay order, the plaintiffs said. Garg requested the stay in a case over the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India until the appeal is resolved for its case over the 2017-18 administrative review for the same goods. Doing so would "promote judicial efficiency," the exporter said (Garg Tube Export LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00169).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion protest brought by All One God Faith, doing business as Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, since the court lacks jurisdiction over the entries, the U.S. defense said on Aug. 2 in a partial motion to dismiss. Since Dr. Bronner's xanthan gum entries have already liquidated and the importer failed to make a timely appeal of its protest of the liquidation, the court has no jurisdiction over the entries, the Department of Justice said (All One God Faith, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

Two Court of International Trade cases from Optima Steel International should not be consolidated since they fall under different "jurisdictional provisions and standards of review," the Department of Justice argued in an Aug. 5 brief. While one case challenges CBP's assessment of antidumping duties and thus falls under Section 1581(a), the other goes after the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions and therefore is under Section 1581(i). "In Court No. 21-00062, the question before the Court is whether CBP, in its ministerial role, properly assessed antidumping duties to the entries at issue pursuant to Commerce’s liquidation instructions," DOJ said. "Court No. 21-00327, however, involves the question of whether Commerce’s liquidation instructions were proper based upon the record before Commerce. Thus, the distinct operative facts and legal issues in the two actions weigh against consolidation" (Optima Steel International, LLC v. U.S., CIT #21-00062) (Optima Steel Internaitonal, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).