Steel wheel importer Rimco seeks relief at the Court of International Trade over the Commerce Department's all-others rate in a countervailing duty review by asking the court to order Commerce not to do something that it did not do in the first place, defendant-intervenor Dexstar Wheels said in a Jan. 24 brief. Asking the trade court to toss the case, Dexstar said that Rimco failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted since Commerce did not actually set an all-others rate in the review (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).

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

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Meyer Corp.'s reply brief in a case over the use of first sale valuation on goods from China was not in compliance with court rules. According to the Jan. 24 notice of non-compliance, the contact information for Meyer's lawyers didn't match the information on the individuals' entries of appearance on the docket. The attorneys have five business days to correct the mistake, the court said. The reply brief came in Meyer's appeal based on a Court of International Trade ruling that held that first sale treatment may not be applicable to non-market economy exports (see 2201190059). Meyer argued that CIT improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied the importer first sale valuation on its cookware from China (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

The Commerce Department properly found that importer Vandewater International Inc.'s steel branch outlets are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, Island Industries told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 brief. Vandewater's and plaintiff-intervenors Sigma Corporation's and Smith-Cooper International's arguments over any differences between their steel branch outlets and BWPF are "factually inconsequential," the brief said (Vandewater International v. United States, CIT #18-00199).

Antidumping petitioner Wheatland Tube Company wants a stay in two cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit until the appellate court issues its final ruling in a separate antidumping duty action. The separate case concerns whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value. In a December 2021 decision in this case, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., the Federal Circuit said that no such adjustment is allowed (see 2112100039). Most recently, the appellate court granted an extension of time to file for a full court rehearing of the decision (see 2201030067). Wheatland Tube wants the stay since the case Hyundai Steel concerns "issues virtually identical to those in this case and Hyundai Steel will ultimately dictate the outcome of this appeal." In response, the Federal Circuit granted a separate motion from the Department of Justice to extend its time to file the case's opening brief while the court considers the motion to stay (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1172, #22-1174).

Antidumping respondent Cheng Shin Rubber Industry Co.'s bid to indefinitely extend a preliminary injunction should be rejected by the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ said that Cheng Shin failed to show that it will suffer immediate irreparable harm for its entries made beyond the original expiration date of the injunction -- June 30, 2022 -- and that if its entries beyond this date are at risk of being liquidated, that the exporter can just request an extension of the injunction (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

The Commerce Department did not adhere to the Court of International Trade's orders when it excluded importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, U.S. producer ASC Engineered Solutions said in a Jan. 21 brief. The court did not instruct Commerce to exclude Star Pipe's flanges but rather to "conduct a more comprehensive review," which the agency failed to do. "Rather, the redetermination simply assumes, incorrectly, that a particular result had been directed by the Court," the brief said (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).

The Court of International Trade, in a confidential opinion, sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the countervailing duty investigation of cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Following litigation at CIT, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trade court's ruling, ultimately finding that an alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration subsidy program failed to provide a benefit and thus, was not countervailable. On remand again at CIT, Commerce further laid out its rationale, concurrent with the Federal Circuit opinion, for finding that a benefit does not exist. Judge Mark Barnett told litigants in a Jan. 21 letter to review the decision for any potential confidential information in the opinion and to report back by Jan. 28 (POSCO v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00225).

An antidumping duty respondent wrongly reported that two of its products had different sensitivity characteristics and thus should have been coded with the same control number (CONNUM), the ADD petitioners told the Court of International in a Jan. 21 complaint. Petitioners Appvion Operations and Domtar also said the Commerce Department should have used partial adverse facts available over the respondent's failure to adequately measure and report the static sensitivity of its thermal paper (Appvion Operations v. U.S., CIT #21-00634).