The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Government of Argentina and Argentine biodiesel company LDC Argentina over the Commerce Department's changed circumstances review of countervailing duties on biodiesel from Argentina. The two had appealed a Court of International Trade decision affirming Commerce's determination that the situation had not changed regarding countervailable subsides from Argentina's biodiesel industry. The trade court also upheld Commerce's decision to originally find changed circumstances but later switch back to a finding of no changed circumstances (see 2109210046) (Government of Argentina v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1190).

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

The Department of Justice will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a November 2021 Court of International Trade decision striking down the Trump administration's withdrawal of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, according to a Jan. 14 notice of appeal. In the opinion, the trade court struck down the exclusion rescission since the law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).

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

Two importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain remand results from the Commerce Department that found certain door thresholds qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In a pair of briefs filed in two separate cases, Columbia Aluminum Products and Worldwide Door Components said Commerce correctly reversed course after CIT's remand (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).

The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy is de facto specific via its Basic Payment Scheme to Spanish olive growers since they receive a "disproportionately large" amount of its benefits, the Department of Justice and defendant-intervenor Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives told the Court of International Trade in a pair of briefs (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, CIT #18-00195).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's decision to find the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review using a weighted average of the respondent's rates rather than a simple average, antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in Jan. 12 comments to the trade court. In its defense of Commerce's actions, Mid Continent cited a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion which held that Commerce can use an adverse facts available rate when finding the separate respondents' dumping margins (see 2201100026) (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. United States, CIT #18-00027).

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

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's voluntary bid to reconsider its decision to countervail the reduction for sewerage fees program in South Korea due to its "new understanding of Korean law," the trade court said in a Jan. 11 order. Commerce requested the do-over in a remand motion in which the plaintiff, Hyundai Steel, consented to the voluntary bid while the defendant-intervenor, Nucor Tubular, took no position on the matter (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00304).

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that the Commerce Department can calculate a separate rate respondent's dumping margin by averaging an adverse facts available rate and a de minimis rate appeared in a similar case at the Court of International Trade. In a Jan. 11 notice of supplemental authority, defendant-intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Federal Circuit opinion "once again affirmed" that the law allows Commerce to include rates based on AFA in the calculation of a separate rate if all the mandatory respondents have a zero, de minimis or AFA rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).