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

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on fabricated structural steel from Mexico. In a March 21 letter on the March 18 confidential opinion, Judge Claire Kelly said the court intends to release a public version March 29 following a period wherein the litigants may review bracketed confidential information. Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) had challenged multiple aspects of Commerce's constructed value in the investigation. One such issue concerns the agency's decision to use a 45.42% combined home market selling expense and profit rate as BSM's constructed value indirect selling expense and profit rate (Building Systems de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, CIT #20-00069).

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

The Court of International Trade rejected exporter Ancientree Cabinet's arguments that the Commerce Department violated the law with its financial ratio calculations in an antidumping duty investigation. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled March 21 that Commerce adequately explained its ratio calculation methodology on remand and that, contrary to Ancientree's arguments, the agency didn't violate any normal or established practice.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final determination in the countervailing duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada, as well as the agency's final negative determination of critical circumstances, in confidential opinion March 18. In a public order on the case, Judge Gary Katzmann denied the motions for judgment filed by plaintiffs Government of Quebec, Marmen Energie and Government of Canada and by defendant-intervenor Wind Tower Trade Coalition. The litigants challenged Commerce's position that Quebec's local content requirement program didn't confer a countervailable subsidy on Marmen, among other things (The Government of Quebec v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-00168).

The Labor Department said that it properly relied on information from senior legal counsel for AT&T when it denied a unionized group of former AT&T call workers trade adjustment assistance, in March 17 remand results at the Court of International Trade. Labor Certifying Officer at the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance Hope Kinglock said one member of AT&T's senior legal counsel team "demonstrated an active knowledge and understanding of the statutory requirement of Section 222(d)(3)(B) of the Trade Act" requested by Labor. "The Department considered this diligent effort to seek out the best official to certify information on behalf of AT&T, which, together with the factors noted above, contributed to the Department’s determination that it is reasonable to conclude that information that [AT&T's legal counsel] provided later in the investigation was accurate and complete without certification," Kinglock said (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).

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

South Korean steel exporter Hyundai Steel Company filed a proposed judgment in a countervailing duty case after the Court of International Trade told litigants to do so as resolution of the matter was reached following a voluntary remand from the Commerce Department (see 2203100028). The proposed order would have the trade court sustain Commerce's remand results. In the remand, Commerce said that a South Korean sewerage fees program was not countervailable, leading to a de minimis rate for Hyundai Steel. In a March 9 joint status report, Hyundai and the U.S. said that case was resolved following the voluntary remand. The case concerns the 2018 CVD administrative review of cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, CIT #21-00012).

Nucor Corporation says the Commerce Department should have added countervailing duties in an administrative review for the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost for certain tariff classes, instead of finding the provision of electricity conferred a "non-measurable benefit." In its March 18 complaint at the Court of International Trade, Nucor took particular issue with Commerce's decision to run a "tier three" analysis into the alleged benefit (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00050).