The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate June 2 in a case originally brought by exporter Nexteel over the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. In the opinion, the appellate court said the Commerce Department didn't properly support its position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs of the subject merchandise (see 2203110044). The Federal Circuit also sustained Commerce's practice of capping freight revenue when calculating U.S. price. Most recently in the case, respondent SeAH Steel unsuccessfully vied for a full court rehearing (Nexteel Co. Inc. v. United States, CAFC # 21-1334).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 1 opinion dismissed a challenge from Turkish steel exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret seeking the reversal of its denied Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif said that the parties have until June 8 to review the bracketed confidential information and the remainder of the opinion to see if anything else should be redacted from the public versions. The U.S. originally moved to toss the case since the subject entries are not liquidated, and Borusan filed the case under Section 1581(a), which requires a protestable decision to occur before such a claim can be made (see 2108260062). In a public judgment, Reif sided with the U.S., dismissing the case (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00186).

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., appeared in two antidumping duty cases as a supplemental authority, according to two notices at the Court of International Trade. The May 24 opinion said the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available over a respondent's reporting of service-related revenue. The court ruled that Commerce's change of methodology and later finding that the respondent failed to provide all the required sales data in the right form cut against the statutory requirement to provide notice and opportunity to remedy a deficiency (see 2205240028). The appellate court said that Commerce has no right to use AFA unless the respondent has failed to provide the requested information after being notified of the deficiency.

Gun sight inserts that use tritium for powerless illumination in low light conditions should be classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9022 as apparatus that use beta radiation, rather than in heading 9405 as non-electrical lamps, importer Trijicon said in a complaint filed May 31 at the Court of International Trade. Despite a ruling issued by CBP to the contrary, Trijicon said heading 9022 covers apparatus that use beta radiation regardless of end use, and that the use of beta radiation is more specific for tariff classification purposes and harder to satisfy than lamp (Trijicon Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00040).

Industrial diamonds from China further processed into superabbrasives in Romania should not be subject to additional Section 301 tariffs as products of China, Lieber & Solow, which does business as Lands Superabrasives, said in a complaint filed May 27 at the Court of International Trade. The companies argue that the industrial diamond crystals from China became objects of a different character, identity and use after processing in Romania and should be Romanian products for tariff purposes. Lands asked the court to find Romania as the correct country of origin and order CBP to reliquidate the merchandise with refunds of excess duties and interest (Lieber & Solow Ltd. d/b/a Lands Superabrasives, Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00623).

The government is opposing the consolidation or test case designation of four cases involving hardwood plywood imported by Richmond International Forest Products (RIFP) at the Court of International Trade. In a motion filed May 27, the government said RIFP has already proved its products are not of Chinese origin in the case RIFP designated as a test case, but that the court would still need to consider the three other cases on an entry-specific basis (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00063, 21-00178, 21-00318, 21-00319).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 31 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Richard Eaton gave the litigants until June 7 to review the bracketed confidential information. The case, brought by U.S. Steel Corp., challenges Commerce's alleged failure to address the company's arguments over whether a reimbursement of the antidumping duties was occurring between the Australian producer and its affiliated U.S. importer (United States Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #20-03815).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reverse the Court of International Trade's judgment sustaining the International Trade Commission's finding that imports of fabricated structural steel from Canada, Chile and Mexico did not harm the domestic industry, petitioner Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) said in a May 27 reply brief. The appellees in the case are "not even in agreement amongst themselves" over what the ITC decided in the case or why, and they have "failed to adequately defend" the "specific legal issues" raised by AISC, the brief said (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1176).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: