The Commerce Department erred by finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration conferred a non-measurable benefit in a countervailing duty review, U.S. steel company Nucor Corp. argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade. During the review, Nucor took issue with the evidentiary flaws with the cost data that Commerce used, telling the agency that it was illegal to say that the data reflected market-based costs. The suit mirrors the language in a separate case brought by Nucor over a different CVD review (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00171).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 11 order dismissed an appeal from Wheatland Tube Co. on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping matters. Wheatland moved for a voluntary dismissal, telling the court that since the key case on this issue, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., was not petitioned to the Supreme Court, the court should dismiss the appeal (see 2206280063). In Hyundai Steel, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce is not allowed to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1300).

The Commerce Department's admission that the administrative case brief in an antidumping duty matter wasn't the right time to bring up arguments over verification procedures reveals the futility of raising verification concerns administratively, plaintiffs led by Ellwood City Forge argued to fight off claims that it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Submitting a notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade, Ellwood said Commerce's remand results in a separate AD case declaring that 63 days was "far too late" to pursue a request for virtual verification in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 restrictions indicates that raising the issue of virtual verification in the petitioner's case was futile (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the U.S.'s motion to toss a six-count case brought by CBD and hemp manufacturer ASHH over the seizure and detention of lithium-ion batteries, classified by CBP as "drug paraphernalia." Judge Robert Cleland held that the plaintiff had other remedies at law via the administrative process and that CBP's seizures are not final agency action (ASHH v. U.S., E.D. Mich. #21-11210).

The Commerce Department erred by not including exporter Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. in the all-others rate in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India, covering entries in 2019-2020, Echjay argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #22-00172).

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

The Commerce Department submitted its remand results July 5 in an antidumping duty review challenge originally brought by Risen Energy Co. at the Court of International Trade. Commerce switched its positions on applying adverse facts available over unreported factors of production data -- reverting to neutral facts available -- and on how to value silver paste using Malaysian surrogate data. The agency stuck by its positions, though, on how to value backsheets and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) using surrogate data. The latter two positions remain contested by the plaintiffs, but they consented to Commerce's switch on the FOP data and silver paste (Risen Energy Co., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03743).

The Commerce Department erred by selecting Brazil as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review then using log input data from Malaysia, exporter Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. said in a July 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Senmao also contested Commerce's decision to deny the exporter a byproduct offset, revise the Brazilian surrogate value data for plywood and select Brazil as the primary surrogate while rejecting its log data, adjusting the plywood data and revising the financial ratios (Jiangsu Senmoa Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00190).

The Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government provided a countervailable subsidy via the provision of carbon emission permits to exporter Hyundai Steel violates the law, Hyundai argued in a July 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Since the requirement to buy carbon emission permits places a cost on the company, and the Korean government didn't forgo revenue by providing an additional permit allocation to Hyundai, the provision of the permits doesn't constitute a countervailable benefit, the complaint said (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT #22-00170).