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

The Commerce Department erred in using an allocation method for Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's (SMPC) certification expenses that covered the whole period of review, SMPC said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By doing so, Commerce violated its own practice of using the most detailed transaction-specific expense data and distorted the data, the exporter said (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT #22-00107).

Arguments from antidumping plaintiffs, led by Wilmar Trading, looking to invoke a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion on whether a particular market situation exists "significantly overstates" the case's relevance, DOJ said in an April 7 reply brief (Wilmar Trading PTE v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00121).

Section 232 steel tariffs paid by importer North American Interpipe should be deducted from its U.S. price in an antidumping proceeding, the importer, along with its Ukrainian manufacturer, argued in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Taking a novel approach to this position -- which has been routinely defeated at CIT -- Interpipe said the national security tariffs should be deducted due to their tentative nature given that a number of exclusion requests were retroactively granted in a separate CIT case challenging the exclusion denials (Interpipe Ukraine v. U.S., CIT #22-00066).

The Commerce Department improperly applied adverse facts available to antidumping duty adminstrative review respondent Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co. since the agency failed to notify the respondent that there was a deficiency in its responses, Meihua said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result of using AFA, Commerce hit Meihua with a 154.07% dumping margin -- a rate dubbed "draconian" by the plaintiffs (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00069).

Though the Court of International Trade ruled April 1 that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it failed in its final tariff notices to publicly connect the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 comments it received with the tariff decisions it made (see 2204010061), the three-judge panel absolved the agency of APA wrongdoing amid plaintiffs’ allegations it ran sloppy rulemakings.

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

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled March 31 that Chinese exporter T.T. International is entitled to judgment on its claims of unjust enrichment against BMP International and its U.S. affiliate relating to the sale of refrigerants, disposable cylinders and other products exported from China. Judge Charlene Honeywell sent the case to trial to determine the total amount of damages but also ruled that T.T. is due nearly $1 million from the defendants as that amount is uncontested (T.T. International Co. v. BMP International, M.D. Florida #8:19-2044).

Domestic U.S. cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) producer SSAB Enterprises should not be allowed to intervene in exporter Dongkuk Steel Mill Co.'s countervailing duty challenge, the exporter told the Court of International Trade in an April 5 brief. Since SSAB did not submit any factual information or written arguments to the Commerce Department during the relevant CVD proceeding, SSAB is not an "interested party" with standing to intervene in the case, Dongkuk said (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00032).

The Court of International Trade should dismiss Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's challenge to antidumping duty cash deposit instructions filed under the court's "residual" jurisdiction since it is not a novel issue and claims can be pursued under Section 1581(c), the antidumping jurisdiction, DOJ said in an April 4 brief (J.D. Irving, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00641).