The Commerce Department erred when it treated Section 232 steel and aluminum duties as ordinary customs duties and deducted them from antidumping duty respondent Borusan's export price and constructed export price, the respondent argued in a Jan. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #23-00005).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 13 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request in an antidumping duty case. Commerce wanted the remand period to review the non-selected respondents' rate in an AD review since the rate was based on the prior administrative review's rate, which was changed after separate litigation at the trade court (Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00006).

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

The International Trade Commission used an incorrect interpretation of the word "likely" when finding that revoking the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia would likely lead to the recurrence of material injury to the domestic U.S. industry within a reasonably foreseeable time, Australian exporter BlueScope Steel argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade Jan. 13, BlueScope also said the ITC erred by cumulating Australian imports with other countries' imports in the injury review (BlueScope Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00353).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in a Jan. 9 opinion upheld a district court ruling sentencing Chinese national Shuren Qin to two years in prison for violating federal export controls. Qin was found guilty of shipping hydrophones with anti-submarine applications to a Chinese military university on the Commerce Department's Entity List (see 2109090033). Judges David Barron, Jeffrey Howard and William Kayatta ruled the search of Qin's laptop and cellphone "constituted a border search that was supported by reasonable suspicion that Qin was engaged in the ongoing violation of export laws," and the defendant was properly convicted (United States v. Shuren Qin, 1st Cir. # 21-1832).

The Court of International Trade should not dismiss a case based on the underlying entries' liquidation because the entries were liquidated erroneously, importer Fraserview argued in a Jan. 12 brief (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. United States, CIT # 22-00244).

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

Countervailing duty respondent Zhejiang Zhouli Industrial moved on Jan. 11 to dismiss its case at the Court of International Trade over late-submitted questionnaire responses in a countervailing duty investigation (Zhejiang Zhouli Industrial v. United States, CIT # 22-00177).

The Commerce Department properly used total adverse facts available over antidumping respondent Hyundai Electric & Energy System's failure to report service-related revenue for its U.S. sales and failure of the completeness test at verification, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Jan. 11 opinion. Since the trade court previously upheld the use of AFA for each of these issues independently, Judge Mark Barnett said the court now finds substantial evidence supports the use of total AFA, as opposed to partial AFA, for both of these points.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 10 order stayed the due date for plaintiff-appellants' reply brief in a countervailing duty case, pending the resolution of the appellants' motion seeking another 900 words for their reply. The appellants, the province of Quebec, Marmen, Marmen Energie, Marmen Energy and the government of Canada, claimed good cause existed to give them the additional words since the U.S. argued that the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies relating to the specificity of the Quebec On-The-Job Training Tax Credit in addition to the four underlying issues in the case (Quebec v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).