The Commerce Department failed to support its finding that the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration conferred a non-measurable benefit in a countervailing duty proceeding involving goods from South Korea, CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a Feb. 3 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nucor also railed against Commerce's decision not to conduct verification of the South Korean government's questionnaire responses (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT #23-00003).

Antidumping duty respondent Octal moved to dismiss its challenge of the Commerce Department's decision to find that the company was affiliated with one of its U.S. customers, among other things. On Feb. 1, Commerce released its final determination in the underlying AD investigation terminating the order, leading Octal to petition to dismiss the case (Octal v. U.S., CIT # 20-03697).

The U.S. said that negotiations between it and importer Root Sciences over whether the company's imports should be seized as "drug paraphernalia" have "achieved substantial progress." Filing for its fifth extension of time over its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. said that it and Root have been discussing how to settle the matter ever since the importer's informal proposal for negotiations (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1795).

The Commerce Department made multiple errors in assigning duty rates in an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, plaintiff intervenor JA Solar argued in its Jan. 30 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Risen Energy Co., et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00231).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 3 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request to reconsider its decision to apply a cost-based particular market situation adjustment when calculating antidumping duty respondent Garg Tube Export's weighted-average dumping margin. The respondent consented to the motion in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 2021 decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which found Commerce can't make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT # 21-00169).

The Commerce Department defended its final results in an antidumping duty review in a Feb. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, arguing, among other things, that Commerce did not illegally change its methodology when it decided to use third-country control number (CONNUM) costs. The agency also claimed that plaintiff Navneet Education misread Commerce's decision not to use third-party CONNUMs in a review on ripe olives from Spain when it argued that the ripe olives case affirmed agency practice (Navneet Education v. United States, CIT # 22-00132).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 2 order remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's mandate in the case (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-00069).

Conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society moved to toss one count of their complaint in a case seeking an import ban on certain fish taken from New Zealand's West coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. The plaintiffs filed a partial motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 2, arguing that the third count of the complaint, which is a challenge to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2020 comparability findings on this area in New Zealand's waters, is moot since the findings expired at the end of 2022 (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, CIT #20-00112).

The Commerce Department's recent remand decision not to treat a countervailing duty respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier is relevant for exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's case at the Court of International Trade, the exporter argued. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on Feb. 2, Kaptan said that Commerce's remand decision in Nucor Corp. v. U.S. is "at odds with Commerce's analysis in the instant case" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade: