The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 12 letter invited the U.S. and defendants-appellants Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Hyundai Corp. to file a response to a panel rehearing petition in an antidumping duty case. Originally brought by Hitachi Energy USA, the case concerns the administrative review of the AD order on large power transformers from South Korea. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly hit respondent HHI with adverse facts available over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said HHI has the right to supplement the record and Commerce cannot claim the company didn't act to the best of its ability in the review since it fully responded to Commerce's requests for further information (see 2205240028). Hitachi then filed for a rehearing, and the court invited the U.S., HHI and Hyundai Corp. to respond since they have yet to file a reply (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).

The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade flipped its positions on whether a particular market situation adjustment distorts the cost of production of a welded line pipe input and whether an adjustment should be made to antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s constructed value for sales of non-prime goods. The agency conformed to the trade court's ruling, finding a PMS doesn't exist and recalculating CVD without the non-prime goods adjustment, leaving respondents Nexteel and SeAH Steel Corp. with 1.12% and zero percent dumping rates, respectively. However, the agency stuck by its decision to reclassify Nexteel's reported losses over its suspended production lines (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).

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

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

Plaintiffs in an antidumping duty case, led by Ellwood Cit y Forge Company, filed for a reconsideration of a Court of International Trade opinion that found that they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies when challenging the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. The reconsideration bid argued that Commerce's remand results in a separate antidumping case revealed how futile raising the point administratively would have been, and that in light of these new facts, the court should reconsider its ruling (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00073).

The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) should not be allowed to intervene in a case contesting CBP's finding that Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing an opposition brief at the Court of International Trade on July 13, with the support of Global Aluminum, Kingtom argued that AEFTC's motion is untimely, it failed to show a conditional right to intervene and the committee cannot intervene based on a shared claim or defense (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00198).

Adverse price affects from imports do not have to be the main driver of injury for the International Trade Commission to reach an affirmative injury finding in an antidumping duty investigation, said Novus International, an intervenor supporting the ITC's challenged affirmative injury determination in the AD duty investigations on methionine from Spain and Japan, in a brief filed July 14 (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).

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

The U.S. on July 14 appeared in a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited countervailing duty reviews. The court in June invited the U.S. to file an amicus brief after it failed to appear to that point (see 2206100045). In response, Elizabeth Speck at DOJ asked the court for another 92 days to file the amicus brief, filing an unopposed motion for extension of time. In the brief, Speck said that the additional 92 days is necessary since the U.S. has decided not to participate in the appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed four appeals over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value in antidumping duty proceedings. The appellant in each case, AD petitioner Wheatland Tube, voluntarily moved to dismiss the cases after it didn't petition the Supreme Court to hear a key case, Hyundai Steel v. U.S. In that decision, the Federal Circuit said the statute doesn't permit Commerce to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039). Wheatland subsequently dropped all of its appeals on the subject except for one, which it argued should be continued even in light of the Hyundai Steel decision (see 2207120072). The court, in a series of three orders, dismissed four of the appeals and lifted the stay in the remaining one (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1172, #22-1173, #22-1174) (Husteel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1300).