A group of U.S. steel companies, including U.S. Steel Corp., made their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 8 brief as to why they should be allowed to intervene in multiple cases challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny an exclusion to Section 232 national security tariffs. The Court of International Trade had denied their right to intervene due to the companies' lack of a legally protectable interest in the cases. The American steel producers countered by arguing that they have a right to intervene based on their participation administratively in the exclusion cases, direct economic stake in the outcome and position as intended beneficiaries of the Section 232 measures (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).

The issue of whether a South Korean port usage rights program is countervailable is not moot just because the Commerce Department has now assigned a de minimis rate to the countervailing duty respondent, Hyundai Steel Co. argued in a Dec. 8 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Rather, since Commerce can continue subjecting Hyundai to countervailing duty reviews based on this port usage rights program, the question is key for Hyundai, despite the fact that it is not being hit with CV duties this time around, the company said (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #20-03799).

The Commerce Department went too far when hitting antidumping respondent BlueScope Steel Ltd. with total adverse facts available in an AD review, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 30 opinion, made public on Dec. 8. Remanding the case to Commerce, Judge Richard Eaton said that Commerce failed to back its AFA finding for two reasons: it did not show that BlueScope's responses created a gap in the record over its U.S. sales quantity and value report, and failed to give notice of deficient responses relating to reconciling BlueScope's U.S. and home market sales information with prior submissions.

CBP unfairly denied importer Compressed Air Systems' protest showing that it overpaid duties and fees for its air compressor and vacuum pump part entries, CAS argued in its Dec. 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Due to a clerical error committed by the customs broker, the entries were overvalued, CAS said. CBP then refused to fix the error after the importer protested CBP's liquidation of the entries, leading the company to file suit with the trade court (Compressed Air Systems, LLC v. CBP, CIT #21-00615).

The Court of International Trade cannot set aside case law finding that subassemblies do not qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion in antidumping and countervailing duty order scope rulings, Judge Stephen Vaden said in a Dec. 6 opinion. Siding with the Commerce Department over plaintiffs China Customs Manufacturing and Greentec Engineering, the court said the plaintiffs' solar roof mountings fall within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusion from China.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Surety company International Bond & Marine is responsible for over $730,000 in unpaid duties resulting from a diamond jewelry company's fraudulent import scheme, the Department of Justice alleged in a Dec. 6 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. Due to the terms of the bond agreement between International Bond and the jewelry company, Anaya Gems, the surety must cover the unpaid duties that accrued as a result of Anaya Gems' efforts to undervalue its jewelry shipments and underpay customs duties owed, DOJ said (United States v. International Bond & Marine, Ltd., CIT #21-00611).

U.S. Steel was again denied the right to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial challenge at the Court of International Trade, with the court holding that the Pennsylvania steel company did not have a legally protectable interest in the case. According to the Dec. 3 opinion, U.S. Steel cannot intervene in the case since it won't be directly affected by the case's outcome. Judge Claire Kelly said that any harm that U.S. Steel would experience as a result of the court granting a Section 232 exclusion would be indirect since the company has no right to the sale of the covered products.

The Commerce Department has given no reason why South Korean steel company SeAH Steel Corp. should be penalized via a delayed remand submission because "Commerce has chosen to procrastinate" on a delayed remand in another case, SeAH told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 2 brief (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-00150).

The International Trade Commission should revoke the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Canada, China, India and Oman due to the U.S. industry already running at full capacity and undertaking market distorting practices, PET resin consumers will tell the ITC during a sunset review of the orders. The PET resin consumers, including members of the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), note the inflationary effect the AD/CVD orders on PET resin have on their prices and mark the orders as one of the factors contributing to unsustainable price hikes amid shortages in one of bottled water's essential inputs.