The Commerce Department, on remand at the Court of International Trade, incorporated information from antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. regarding its service-related revenues and expenses, slashing the exporter's dumping rate from 16.13% to 4.69%. Commerce solicited this information from the company after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told the agency to let Hyundai supplement the record (Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., CIT # 16-00054).

The Court of International Trade in a July 26 order granted a stay in two cases challenging the expansion of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties on derivative products until 30 days after importer PrimeSource Building Products' appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S. is resolved. PrimeSource indicated it was appealing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling upholding the tariff expansion to the Supreme Court earlier this month (see 2307240022). The two cases newly stayed by the trade court were brought by importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu said their proceedings will be stayed until PrimeSource's suit "becomes final, including all appeals and remand proceedings" (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053).

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

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

The Court of International Trade in a July 25 order dismissed an antidumping suit brought by exporter Okechamp for failure to file a complaint within the time allotted. Okechamp brought the case to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands. The trade court said the case was tossed for lack or prosectuion (Okechamp v. United States, CIT # 23-00134).

The Commerce Department can use a transaction-specific margin as an adverse facts available rate, the government argued in a July 24 reply brief at the Court of International Trade supporting its motion for reconsideration. While exporter Lumber Liquidators argued that the statute only allows a calculated dumping margin and not one based solely on a single sales transaction, the U.S. said this interpretation cuts against the law's plain language, which says that when Commerce uses AFA, it can use any margin from any segment of the proceeding (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).

The Court of International Trade in a July 24 opinion granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request to address alleged errors in calculating the antidumping margin as part of the investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. Judge Stephen Vaden also sent the case back after finding that Commerce did not express a clear rationale for its refusal to address petitioner Ellwood City Forge Co.'s claims on alternate legal grounds Commerce could have used to make a particular market situation adjustment.

The Commerce Department illegally picked Germany as the third-country comparison market in the antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands, U.S. mushroom producer Giorgio Foods argued in a July 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Giorgio, the AD petitioner, said that none of the reasons Commerce gave for picking Germany was supported by substantial evidence, leading, in part, to a de minimis rate for respondent Prochamp and the company's exclusion from the AD order (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department failed to explain its "abrupt change in practice" from its past decision finding that exporter KG Dongbu Steel's debt-to-equity restructurings were not countervailable, Dongbu argued in a July 21 opening brief at the Court of International Trade. The exporter relied on the trade court's recent opinion finding in a separate case also brought by Dongbu in which the court agreed and said that the change in practice was "arbitrary and unlawful" (see 2307100028). "The facts are the same in this appeal" on the 2020 review of the CVD order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea, and the court "should reach the same conclusion here" (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00055).