The Commerce Department erred in using a period of review-wide allocation for the certification expenses of Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container (SMPC), SMPC said in an Aug. 16 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. United States, CIT #22-00107).

Adverse facts available applied to Hyundai's reporting of parts in an antidumping duty administrative review on Korean power transformers are still warranted despite a previous court remand, the Commerce Department said in the results of a remand published Aug. 15 (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00108). Commerce said that although facts available are not justifiable with respect to Hyundai’s reporting of parts and components, it will still apply total adverse facts available to Hyundai.

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

Lawyers for the Section 301 test-case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products have until Sept. 14 to file their response to the Aug. 1 remand results on the lists 3 and 4A tariffs from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said an Aug. 15 scheduling order from the three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade. DOJ’s reply is due 44 days later, by Oct. 28, the order said. The two sides, in a joint status report, had agreed on the Sept. 14 date for the plaintiffs to respond to USTR’s remand results, but the government asked for 60 days to Nov. 14 to file its reply, while the plaintiffs asked for the government's reply within 30 days, by Oct. 14.

The International Trade Commission overvalued the importance of price in its determination of injury in an antidumping duty investigation on methionine from Spain and Japan, a Spanish exporter told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief that seeks to toss out the ITC's determination of material injury (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).

Nucor Corporation, both consolidated plaintiff and defendant-intervenor in a countervailing duty case, is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a lower court ruling that the Commerce Department properly found that electricity was not provided below cost in South Korea, in an investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (see 2206130054), it said Aug. 12. Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that both issues previously remanded by the Federal Circuit -- Commerce's reliance on the preferential-rate standard and its failure to address the Korean Power Exchange's (KPX's) impact on the South Korean electricity market as rendering cost-recovery analysis -- now comply with the appellate court's ruling (POSCO v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00227).

The Commerce Department erred in a scope ruling regarding antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheets from China, importer Valeo argued to the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief (Valeo North America v. U.S., CIT #21-00581). The brief supports a March motion for judgment that challenged the ruling by Commerce that determined Valeo’s imported heat-treated T-series aluminum sheet is covered by the scope of the AD/CVD orders.

Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 test plaintiffs and DOJ agree that plaintiffs’ comments on the Aug. 1 lists 3 and 4A tariff remand results by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (see 2208020016) and a government response to those comments would aid the court’s evaluation of the remand results, the two sides said in a joint status report filed Aug. 15 in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the Court of International Trade. They propose that plaintiffs’ comments would be due Sept. 14 and DOJ’s response 30 days later, but the government says the plaintiffs are not entitled to file a reply to the government’s response, as plaintiffs want to do by Nov. 4, the report said. The sides also disagree on the page limits for any future filings, it said. Plaintiffs also are requesting oral argument on the remand results, but the government takes no position on the request.

Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case will appeal a Court of International Trade decision upholding the rate calculated for non-individually investigated respondents in an antidumping duty administrative review on steel nails from Taiwan (see 2206170040). PrimeSource Building Products and consolidated plaintiffs Cheng Ch International Co., Ltd., China Staple Enterprise Corporation, De Fasteners Inc., Hoyi Plus Co., Ltd., Liang Chyuan Industrial Co., Ltd., Trim International Inc., UJL Industries Co., Ltd., Yu Chi Hardware Co., Ltd., and Zon Mon Co., Ltd. will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to two notices of appeal filed Aug. 12. In the June 16 opinion, the trade court found the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence to to establish that the expected method -- the practice of averaging adverse facts available rates in the absence of non-AFA, zero or de minimis margins -- should not be used (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S. CIT #20-03911).

The government notified the Court of International Trade that it has inadvertently liquidated bifacial solar panels following a CIT order in December that suspended liquidation. The government told the court that CBP is taking steps to correct the mistake and that it has communicated with the plaintiffs and non-parties affected by the liquidations.