The Commerce Department again failed to adhere to the Court of International Trade's order concerning the agency's phosphate rock benefit calculations regarding countervailing duty respondent JSC Apatit's mining rights, exporter Phosagro and its affiliate, Apatit, argued in remand comments at the trade court. The companies said that the remand results, which didn't make any changes to its position in the CVD investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia, ignored the court's mandate regarding Commerce's use of Apatit's Profit Before Tax figure in its profit ratio instead of its Gross Profit Figure (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00117).

The U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a voluntary remand on Nov. 15 in an Enforce and Protect Act case so it can consider the appellate court's decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not giving it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).

Antidumping and countervailing duty petitioner Magnum Magnetics Corp. will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision excluding importer Siffron's plastic shelf dividers from the AD/CVD orders on raw flexible magnets from China. In the opinion, the trade court said the Commerce Department reasonably found that the scope language and the (k)(1) sources, including prior scope rulings and an International Trade Commission report, established that the dividers didn't belong in the scope of the orders (see 2309260049). The petitioner said in its Nov. 14 notice of appeal that it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00254).

Exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of the Turkish lira to value Habas' home-market sales as part of the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. The trade court said Commerce's use of the lira didn't deviate from its past practice or the established reasons underlying the practice (see 2309140049). Habas said it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT # 21-00527).

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

The Commerce Department doesn't have to "undertake the impossible task of choosing a perfect or near-perfect methodology" when rooting out "masked" dumping, petitioner Welspun Tubular said in a Nov. 6 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Welspun added that Commerce didn't have to "follow the teachings of statisticians on the Cohen's d test simply because Commerce has decided in its expert opinion to rely on the Cohen's d formula and the effect size coefficient corresponding to a grossly perceptible difference to identify whether price differences between customers, regions, or time periods are significant" (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

There are other ways to achieve separate rate status in an antidumping duty review beyond filing a separate rate application, exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer and importer Repwire argued in a Nov. 13 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer and exporter argued against the government, which claimed that Jin Tiong was not eligible for a separate rate in the 2019-20 AD review of aluminum wire and cable from China since it didn't submit a separate rate application, even though a separate rate questionnaire was accidentally sent to it (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).

Chinese tire exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, in the alternative, sever the consolidated action for the two companies. The exporters said that the "good cause" prompting this action is that both exporters are currently adherent to the word limit for a single brief even though both of their cases rest on entirely unique fact patterns (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

Importer URE NSP Corp. moved to dismiss its case at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's miscalculating of its antidumping duty payments on solar cells from Taiwan. The importer said in its complaint that CBP ignored its prior disclosure payments, then partially denied a protest seeking those funds (see 2308140010). The company asked the court to order a refund of about $311,00 plus interest for overpayment of duties (URE NSP Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00154).

The Commerce Department's decision to include importer Precision Components' goods in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China cuts against the "clear language of the scope" and Commerce's "historic treatment of the scope," Precision said in a Nov. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).