The Commerce Department erred in its de jure and de facto specificity findings in a forged steel fluid end blocks countervailing duty case on climate change compliance programs from the German government and the EU, exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen argued in an April 20 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The agency did not prove that the alleged subsidies were expressly limited to an enterprise or industry, precluding a de jure specificity finding, the brief said (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GMBH v. United States, CIT #21-00080).

The defendant-intervenors in an antidumping duty case, Insteel Wire Products Co., Sumiden Wire Products Corp. and Wire Mesh Corp., signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results at the Court of International Trade applying partial adverse facts available. The remand results accepted certain of Turkish exporter Celik Halat's questionnaire responses that it originally denied due to being filed 21 minutes late. The result dropped Commerce's use of total AFA to partial AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. United States, CIT #21-00045).

International law firm Latham & Watkins moved to withdraw as counsel for Russian bank VTB Bank in a case over attacks that brought down a commercial airplane over Ukraine in 2014, seeing as the firm "is in the process of ending its engagement with VTB on multiple matters." Concurrently filing a letter to Judge Gabriel Gorenstein at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District for New York, Latham's Christopher Harris said that he wanted a stay of discovery until new counsel can be found for VTB (Schansman, et al. v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC, S.D.N.Y. #19-02985).

The government should not be allowed a second extension in a classification case to respond to an expert witness report, HyAxiom said in a motion filed April 20 with the Court of International Trade. DOJ has "not yet decided whether they intend to respond to HyAxiom’s Expert Report, let alone retained a rebuttal expert," which, the motion argues, is "effectively putting on pause HyAxiom’s ability to complete its discovery" and, if granted, would prejudice HyAxiom, formerly known as Doosan Fuel Cell America, by forcing it to rearrange its litigation strategy, the importer said. The case stems from a February 2021 complaint by Doosan Fuel Cell America that challenged the reclassification of a steam methane reformer and subsequent denial of protest by CBP. CBP classified the reformer under HTS subheading 8503.00.9550 (3%). Doosan claims the proper subheading is 8405.10.0000 (free).

The Commerce Department illegally assigned an adverse facts available rate to mandatory respondent East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company in an antidumping duty review since the company stopped participating in the review, exporter Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company said in its April 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as Green Farms' separate rate was found via a simple average of the AFA rate and the other respondent's "zero" rate, this separate rate should also be found to be illegally based on AFA as it does not accurately reflect Green Farms' dumping level, the brief said (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT #22-00092).

Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. failed to rebut plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann's motion that no substantial question remains regarding Wheatland's appeal of an antidumping duty case related to a particular market adjustment, Borusan said in an April 20 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Since the Federal Circuit in a separate case found that particular market situation adjustments cannot be made to the sales-below-cost test, the issue is "completed," so the court should affirm Borusan's motion for summary affirmance, the brief said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2097).

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

The Commerce Department reversed course on 45 Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion bids, granting the requests on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting the results of its voluntary remand request in an April 18 submission, Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security granted importer Mirror Metals' exclusion requests, finding that the bids should be granted after looking at whether the relevant steel article could be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).

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

Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified as food preparations of heading 2106, rather than in the heading in Chapter 8 for fruit deemed to impart the mixture's essential character, an importer said in a motion for summary judgment filed with the Court of International Trade April 18 (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00131).