Oman Aluminum Rolling Co. (OARC) is not affiliated with a supplier of a key common alloy aluminum sheet input despite the owner of OARC also owning 40% of the input producer, OARC said in a June 25 complaint in the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department's incorrect conclusion of an affiliation led to the agency's application of adverse facts available (AFA) in an antidumping duty investigation of aluminum sheet from Oman, the exporter said. The court should remand this finding for further consideration along with Commerce's use of AFA, because OARC complied with all proceedings in the AD investigation, OARC said (Oman Aluminum Rolling Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00266).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department was right to rely on a differential pricing analysis to apply an average-to-transaction comparison method to SeAH in an antidumping administrative review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea, the Department of Justice said in June 21 comments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. SeAH's points to the contrary rely on arguments that have been "rejected repeatedly" in bids to strike down the longstanding practice, DOJ said. The exporter's arguments against the practice also stand at odds with the Federal Circuit decision in Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, the comments said.

A customs case in the Court of International Trade has been stayed for a three-month period pending a related CBP decision, according to a June 25 order granting the consent motion to stay. In settlement discussions in the case, questions have arisen over a novel question on the application of the USMCA to natural gas imports, and the delay will allow "plaintiff to seek an administrative ruling" from CBP on the issue. Resolution in the customs case, brought by Emera Energy Services, may come following the CBP proceeding, the company's motion to stay said. Emera's case concerns CBP's denial of the exemption from merchandise processing fees for Canadian-origin goods according to the terms of NAFTA, the 2018 initial complaint said (Emera Energy Services, Inc. v. United States, CIT #18-00074).

The Commerce Department again reversed course on applying a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for South Korean steel in an antidumping review, and those remand results were sustained by the Court of International Trade in a June 24 decision.

Hyundai Steel Co. did not receive a countervailable benefit through its payment of sewerage fees, the company argued in a June 22 motion for judgment. The Commerce Department's conclusion to the contrary in a countervailing duty administrative review of cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to law, Hyundai said (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #21-00012).

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

An in lieu of verification (ILV) questionnaire cannot substitute for an actual verification of information submitted as part of a countervailing duty proceeding, Turkish exporter Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi said in a June 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a CVD investigation of common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, Teknik said that Commerce did not provide adequate notice that the exporter's filings were deficient as is required (Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT 21-00251).

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

A customs case from importer Strategic Import Supply should not be reconsidered in light of new evidence since it is merely an attempt by the plaintiff to "relitigate arguments already raised," the Department of Justice said in a June 23 response to SIS's motion to reconsider the case. The plaintiff failed to satisfy the high burden for reconsideration, DOJ said in the Court of International Trade, and also is not entitled to amend its complaint to change the jurisdictional grounds of its claim (Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, CIT #20-03762).