The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a particular market situation distorted the price of a key input of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe, in Aug. 2 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in an antidumping duty case. Prior to this remand, Commerce had already dropped the PMS adjustment to one of the antidumping duty review's mandatory respondents but not the other. On remand for the fourth time in the action, the agency dropped the PMS adjustment for the remaining respondent, dropping non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77% (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

The Commerce Department added certain service-related revenues in antidumping duty respondent Nippon Steel's U.S. price in voluntarily requested remand results, dropping the exporter's dumping margin from 11.70% to 10.12%. Agreeing it "inadvertently" left three service-related expenses out of its calculations of Nippon Steel's U.S. price, Commerce requested the voluntary remand, including them in the price calculations. Nippon Steel still took issue with Commerce's draft revision, prompting the agency to make further revisions to the calculation of the net price used in the differential pricing test and the revenue for the constructed export price (CEP) profit rate (Nippon Steel v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).

Various models of uninterruptable power supplies and surge voltage protectors were substantially transformed by manufacturing operations in the Philippines and should be required to be marked as "Products of China," Cyber Power Systems said in an Aug. 1 motion at the Court of International Trade (Cyber Power Systems v. U.S., CIT #20-00124).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 1 order granted the U.S.'s motion to stay a consolidated case contesting an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case after the plaintiffs, led by Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio, backed off their opposition to the stay. The plaintiffs did so after CBP flipped its evasion finding on importers Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply. In the Global Aluminum Distributor case, CBP said it no longer believes the importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through Kingtom in the Dominican Republic (see 2206150047). In Kingtom's two cases, the U.S. requested a stay until the court sorts out the Global Aluminum case. The stay was granted with Judge Richard Easton ordering the parties to confer and jointly submit a status report and a proposed briefing schedule 14 days from the date judgment is entered in the Global Aluminum Distributor case (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00072).

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

The U.S. identified an incorrect standard for intervention in opposing exporter SeAH Steel Corp.'s motion to intervene in an antidumping proceeding at the Court of International Trade, SeAH argued in a July 29 brief. The exporter argued that it clearly has a right to intervene in the action since a CIT rule says that a party can intervene if it is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute. Given that a federal statute does just that since SeAH was a party to the underlying review in question, SeAH said it can intervene in the case (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00138).

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

The Commerce Department's decision to reject exporter GreenFirst Forest Production's request for a changed circumstances review in a countervailing duty review was "arbitrary and capricious," GreenFirst argued in a brief at the Court of International Trade. The agency based its decision on an inapplicable practice to the case and effectively barred GreenFirst from obtaining a successor-in-interest determination despite its acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's (RYAM's) lumber mills, the brief said (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).

The Government of Ontario won't participate in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada. Ontario gave notice of its non-participation on July 27 in the case. In March, the Court of International Trade sustained all five of the Commerce Departments positions under contention in the investigation. The consolidated case includes challenges to the investigation from Marmen Energie, which was the mandatory respondent; the governments of Canada, Quebec and Ontario; and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, though now the Government of Ontario has dropped out of the appeal. Though it is out of the appeal, the court refused to drop the government from the case's official caption (The Government of Quebec, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1807).

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