Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit asked the Court of International Trade for an injunction barring attorney Daniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from participating in a set of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations before the International Trade Commission. Filing a motion for injunction pending appeal after the trade court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co., argued that they're likely to succeed on appeal since, at the very least, they raised serious legal questions, warranting a stay order from the court. The plaintiffs also claimed that the court erred by illegally shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to identify specific times ARC shared confidential information with Pickard and Buchanan (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00307).
No lawsuits have been filed at the Court of International Trade since Nov. 16.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hold an oral argument on Jan. 10, 2023, at 10 a.m. EST in a case on whether President Donald Trump illegally expanded Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to include derivative products. According to the notice of oral argument, the court will hold the hearing in Courtroom 201 in the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building in Washington. In the case, the Court of International Trade said that Trump illegally expanded the tariffs to derivative products beyond the 105-day deadline to take tariff action that runs from the submission of a report from the commerce secretary. In Transpacific Steel v. U.S., however, the Federal Circuit said that Trump could take certain tariff actions beyond this deadline so long as it it was part of the original "plan of action" (see 2107130059) (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).
The Commerce Department in Nov. 17 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade further explained its surrogate value selection for coal-based carbonized materials and Malaysian company Bravo Green's 2018 financial statements to calculate the surrogate financial ratios in an antidumping duty case (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00131).
The Commerce Department must reconsider its decision to deny plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' request for a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review in a countervailing duty case, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 18 opinion. In defending its decision, Commerce cited its "significant change" practice, under which it says it will not start a CCR where there is evidence of a significant change that could have affected the nature of subsidization. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "it is unclear" why this practice applies since the successor company did not have an individually calculated rate.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. wants more than 7,000 words for its reply in support of its motion for judgment in a case against surety Aegis Security Insurance Co., looking to collect on a bond due 14 years ago. Filing a consent motion for leave to exceed the word limit for its brief, the U.S. said that it wants another 3,000 words, for a total of 10,000, "given the volume and complexity of the issues involved" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).
Plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products submitted a notice of supplemental authority in a Court of International Trade case over the Commerce Department's refusal to initiate a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review (CCR) in a countervailing duty case. In the notice, GreenFirst alerted the court to its filing of a CCR request to find that GreenFirst is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a related antidumping case. After filing in the AD case, Commerce found that information submitted supports starting a successor-in-interest CCR for AD purposes (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
The Commerce Department will revisit its approach to "analyzing and determining the existence of a [particular market situation] that distorts costs of production" in antidumping duty proceedings, given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in Nexteel v. United States. Releasing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Nov. 18 Federal Register, Commerce said that it is seeking public comments on what evidence it should and shouldn't consider when finding whether a PMS exists that supports the COP and when the amount of distortion in the COP caused by a PMS cannot be quantified based on the record.
The Commerce Department properly held and explained that antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co.'s reported steel plate costs do not reasonably reflect the cost of making wind towers in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 17 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon also held that Commerce properly used exporter SeAH Steel Holdings Corp.'s 2018 consolidated financial statement as the basis for constructed value calculations for Dongkuk's profit and selling expenses.