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

The Court of International Trade should not stay a case over the U.S.'s bid to collect antidumping duties on entries brought in between 2000 and 2001, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 10 brief. Though the defendant in the case, surety company American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), wants the case stayed until a resolution in a similar case, the U.S. argues that it will be harmed due to its ongoing discovery efforts in the AHAC action and that AHAC has failed to show any hardship. The U.S. also says the speculative nature of how the related case will affect the AHAC action does not warrant a stay (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

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

The Commerce Department's position that the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration is specific to solar cell producers is not backed by substantial evidence, countervailing duty review respondent Risen Energy Co. argued in a Dec. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The arguments that the government relies on misinterpret the evidence cited by Commerce and in fact affirm the minor role of China's National Development and Reform Commission -- the entity China used to establish the specificity of the alleged benefits, Risen argued (Risen Energy Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03912).

Importer 3BTech launched a second, identical classification battle over its electric scooters, known as hoverboards, in a Dec. 10 complaint in which it alleges the hoverboards were assessed duties under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading at entry into the U.S. 3BTech argues for a different HTS subheading than the one given to it by CBP, and, failing that, argues for an exclusion from the Section 301 China tariffs granted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (3BTech, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00026).

The parties appealing a Court of International Trade decision, led by Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., filed a confidential appendix that is not in compliance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellate court said in a Dec. 7 notice. The confidential version of the appendix doesn't include the "pertinent excerpts of any statutes imposing confidentiality or the entirety of any judicial or administrative protective order" at the beginning of the filing. Further, the document doesn't have the required proof of service, the notice said. The appellants are challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from China, in which Commerce used adverse facts available (Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2067).

The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia, in a Dec. 9 order. One case was brought by U.S. Steel Corp. and the other by Australian company BlueScope Steel Ltd., a mandatory respondent in the review. BlueScope challenged Commerce's decision not to deduct discounts and rebates from BlueScope's normal value when setting its dumping rate, arguing that this decision went against the agency's past regulations and was based on an inaccurate understanding of BlueScope's data (see 2109280038). U.S. Steel, though, said that Commerce violated the law when it found that BlueScope did not reimburse its U.S. affiliate for antidumping duties (see 2109210081). The cases were consolidated under U.S. Steel's action (United States Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00528).

Importer MTD Products Inc. argued in its Dec. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade that its lawn mower engines qualify for duty-free treatment and, in the alternative, an exclusion to the Section 301 China tariffs, and that CBP improperly denied its protest claiming as much. The importer brought in spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China, each valued at less than $180, that are used in walk-behind, riding and zero-turn riding lawn mowers (MTD Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00036).

The Commerce Department need not address the issue of an antidumping respondent's date of sale since it would have no material effect on the respondent's rate, the Department of Justice said in a Dec. 7 brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the antidumping petitioner's comments that argued that Commerce needs to resolve the U.S. date of sale issue as required by the court, the U.S. said that this would be an exercise in futility that is not required by the relevant caselaw since it would be immaterial to the final rate. The respondent, Turkish steel company Borusan Mannesmann echoed these sentiments in its own brief, and added that two-and-a-half years is long enough for it to have waited for the relief that it is entitled to (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00056).

The Court of International Trade greenlighted the Department of Justice's second motion for an extension to file comments on the remand results in a Dec. 8 order submitted in a case over an antidumping scope ruling. Plaintiff-intervenor SIGMA Corporation opposed the bid, arguing that a further delay will prejudice it. SIGMA currently is wrapped up in parallel litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the defendant-intervenor in the CIT case, Island Industries Inc., sued SIGMA and others, arguing that the companies violated the False Claims Act by not paying antidumping duties on their welded outlet imports. While a jury verdict has been entered, SIGMA is seeking a new trial since the verdict was "against the weight of the evidence," SIGMA said (Vandewater International Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00199).