The Commerce Department's surrogate financial ratio calculation in an antidumping duty case, while better explained, is not the most accurate calculation and thus does not comply with the law or the Court of International Trade's order, plaintiff Ancientree Cabinet Co. argued in a Nov. 12 brief at CIT. Further, the particular methodology Commerce used also doesn't jibe with the agency's past methodology and reasoning in other AD reviews, the brief said (The Ancientree Cabinet Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 20-00114).

U.S. Steel Corporation should not be allowed to intervene in a Section 232 exclusion denial case because it has already been denied this right three other times and has no interest that can support intervention, Russian steelmaker NLMK argued in a Nov. 17 brief to the Court of International Trade. The critical flaw in U.S. Steel's intervention bid is that case is about the Commerce Department's action and not about U.S. Steel, NMLK said (NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

The Court of International Trade sustained Nov. 18 the Commerce Department's remand results in a case involving a scope revision in an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on steel trailer wheels from China. After previously sustaining the scope revision itself but remanding the retroactive imposition of the duties on subject merchandise, Judge Gary Katzmann then sustained Commerce's redetermination after it dropped the retroactive duties.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a notice of noncompliance Nov. 15 to counsel for the U.S. government in a case involving Section 232 duties. The notice said only one attorney may serve as principal counsel for each party. Two Department of Justice attorneys, Stephen Tosini and Kyle Beckrich, currently are listed in the docket as counsel for the U.S., with both marked to receive notice. Tosini is listed as the lead counsel and Beckrich as the counsel of record. The Federal Circuit said that "a party's failure to timely file a corrected document curing all defects identified on this notice may result in this document being stricken (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. , #21-2066).

The Commerce Department has the authority to modify the scope of an antidumping duty investigation in response to evidence of evasion to ensure that the ultimate order "provides an effective remedy," the Department of Justice argued in a Nov. 12 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ also backed the actual scope decision at issue in the case itself, asserting it was based on substantial evidence that showed Chinese companies were planning to use the original crushed glass exclusion to evade Commerce's AD/CVD orders on quartz-glass product (M S International, Inc., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1679).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed on Nov. 16 a case challenging a 2020 amendment to an antidumping suspension agreement on sugar from Mexico following a voluntary dismissal motion from the Department of Justice. The appellate court previously upheld the Court of International Trade's denials of two related cases (see 2107190038). Earlier this month, both DOJ and the plaintiff-appellee CSC Sugar said they believe it would be appropriate for the court to dismiss the consolidated appeal (see 2111020069) (CSC Sugar LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-1275).

The DOJ further argued for the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions since the 19 entries that are the subject of litigation have not been liquidated. In a Nov. 12 brief filed at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that the plaintiffs, Borusan Mannesmann and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline, wrongly argue that their protests don't concern the tariff classification of their merchandise. The protests at issue seek use of a tariff exclusion, which is a challenge of the tariff classification, DOJ said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., v. U.S., CIT #21-00186).

In remand results filed at the Court of International Trade, the Commerce Department continued to find that antidumping respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. has failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate, making it part of the China-wide entity, and that the application of Commerce's non-market economy definition to Jinqiao Flooring was reasonable. The remand results relied heavily on a June U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, China Manufacturers Alliance v. U.S., which established that China-wide rates can still be based on adverse facts available even if no members of the country-wide entity were found to be uncooperative (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., v. United States, CIT #18-00191).

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