The Court of International Trade partially remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on utility-scale wind towers from Vietnam, in a March 24 confidential opinion. The U.S. trade group Wind Tower Trade Coalition brought the case to argue in favor of an adverse facts available rate for an exporter. According to the coalition's complaint, the plaintiff challenged Commerce's decision to rely on respondent CS Wind's South Korean affiliate's sales revenue for wind towers as the denominator in the subsidy calculations rather than CS Wind's own sales revenue. The coalition also said that Commerce erred in relying on CS Wind's alleged contradictory reporting on the country of origin and supplies for its steel plate inputs when calculating a subsidy rate for the Import Duty Exemptions on Imports of Raw Materials for Exporting Goods program (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT #20-03692).

The Court of International Trade should not grant the Commerce Department's motion to extend the deadline to file remand results in an antidumping duty case, given the agency's mismanagement of the remand period, exporter SeAH Steel Corporation said in a March 24 brief. If the court does grant Commerce's motion, however, the time should only be extended for two business days plus one business hour -- the same time Commerce gave SeAH to file comments on the agency's remand. SeAH dubbed Commerce's conduct "egregious" and an expression of its "failure to consult in good faith" over the remand schedule (Stupp Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #15-00334).

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

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling is "critical" to an antidumping duty case brought by exporter SeAH Steel Corporation, defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation said in a March 21 notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade. The recent Federal Circuit opinion held that the Commerce Department did not properly support its position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea (see 2203110044). While the appellate court's decision upheld the trade court's ruling that the PMS determination was not justified, the court used different reasoning that U.S. Steel finds crucial to its case (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).

The Court of International Trade sustained all of the Commerce Department's positions in a countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada, spurning a slew of litigants in the case ranging from the Canadian government to a U.S. wind tower trade group. In the March 18 opinion made public March 23, Judge Gary Katzmann sided with Commerce on all five issues under contention.

DOJ is again arguing that it can file counterclaims in Court of International Trade classification cases -- even after more than four years into a case. Days after defending its counterclaim in another denied protest case involving importer Cyber Power (see 2203180042), DOJ is now arguing that delays by another importer in a separate case, Second Nature, allow it to bring a counterclaim despite the time elapsed (Second Nature Designs Ltd. v. United States, CIT #17-00271).

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

U.S. steel company Nucor Corporation will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a January Court of International Trade decision that held that no benefit was conferred on South Korean steel companies through the provision of electricity, according to the March 22 notice of appeal. The case has previously been to the Federal Circuit, where the appellate court remanded it for unlawfully relying on price discrimination instead of a thorough fair-market principles evaluation (see 2202020035). The trade court said that the Commerce Department has now addressed the Federal Circuit's concerns (POSCO v. United States, CIT #16-00225).

Processes performed on steel bars do not constitute "further working" for the purposes of tariff classification, meaning the steel bars are still classifiable in a tariff subheading subject to Section 232 tariffs, DOJ said in a brief filed March 21 at the Court of International Trade. Arguing in favor of its cross-motion for judgment, DOJ said that imported grinding rods from China are still classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 7228.40.00 as “Other bars and rods of other alloy steel … not further worked than forged." ME Global is seeking reclassification of the rods under the residual subheading 7326.11.00 as "other articles of iron or steel,” which are not subject to Section 232 tariffs (ME Global Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00179).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate following an opinion allowing the Commerce Department to use adverse facts available due to the Chinese government's failure to provide information on its electricity price-setting practices, in a countervailing duty review. In the January opinion, the appellate court affirmed Commerce's CV duties for the provision of electricity below cost after the Chinese government failed to explain price variations across different provinces (see 2201280033). The March 21 mandate affirms Commerce's results in the administrative review of the CVD order on solar cells from China (Canadian Solar v. United States, Fed. Cir. 21-1434).