Russian exporter TMK Group on Jan. 20 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on the International Trade Commission's injury finding on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Russia that led to the imposition of a countervailing duty order on the goods. The three-count complaint challenges the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Russia with imports from Brazil, Mexico and South Korea; its analysis of South Korea's imports in the cumulation analysis; and its decision that material injury to the domestic industry was "by reason of imports" (TMK Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00346).

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

United States Steel Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its bid to intervene in a case challenging a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff denial after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected U.S. Steel's and other steel companies' motion to intervene in another exclusion challenge. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal on Jan. 18, U.S. Steel said that given the resolution of the matter in California Steel v. U.S. (see 2209080024), the case should be dismissed. Counsel for appellee NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. government said that they do not oppose the motion (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1448).

The statute of limitations has not run out on a customs fraud case since the Court of International Trade has consistently found that the date of entry of merchandise is the date when the statute of limitations begins to run, the government told the trade court in a Jan. 17 reply brief. Responding to a motion to dismiss the penalty case from Zhe "John" Liu and his company GL Paper Distribution, the U.S. said that Liu's claim that the allegations are "legally insufficient" lacks merit since the complaint explains how the defendant carried out a multiyear fraud scheme via GL Paper in a way that is "plausible on its face" (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).

A Jan. 18 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit antidumping duty decision concerning the Commerce Department's rejection of untimely filed submissions has surfaced in another AD case at the Court of International Trade. In a notice of supplemental authority the same day, petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Trinity Manufacturing v. U.S. ruling is relevant for the present action (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348). In Trinity, the Federal Circuit found Commerce didn't abuse its discretion in rejecting a late submission that led to the revocation of an AD order (see 2301180025).

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

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 18 in an antidumping case on whether the Commerce Department can pick just one mandatory respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review. In an August 2022 decision, the appellate court said that Commerce cannot use only one respondent in this context, finding that doing so cuts against the statute's unambiguous language (see 2208290026). After the opinion was issued, the government asked for, and was given, more time to file a petition for rehearing (see 2211210070). The rehearing motion never came, leading to the Federal Circuit's mandate (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-1489).

Both the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission committed various errors in their antidumping duty investigations on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Mexico, Russia and South Korea, plaintiffs Tenaris Bay City, Maverick Tube, Ipsco Tubulars and Siderca said in three related complaints, all filed Jan. 13 at the Court of International Trade.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 18 order upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning an untimely filing in an antidumping duty sunset review that led to an AD order's revocation. The trade court said the Commerce Department did not abuse its discretion when enforcing the filing deadline. The appellate court affirmed without an opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 18 order upheld the Court of International Trade's ruling in a case on the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Indonesia. At the trade court, Commerce reversed the outcome of the actual investigation, leading to a lack of countervailable subsidization and a rescinding of the order.