Antidumping duty investigation respondent Hyundai Steel Co.'s arguments against the Commerce Department's particular market situation finding for South Korean hot-rolled coil cannot be considered because they don't apply to Hyundai, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Nov. 8 brief. Even if the court were to consider Hyundai's arguments on this issue, nothing in the court's latest opinion in the case precludes Commerce from finding a PMS, the brief said. Rather, CIT only took issue with Commerce's application of the PMS finding.

A recent Commerce Department scope ruling nullifies importer Valeo North America's case at the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in its Nov. 1 motion to dismiss. Seeing as Valeo sought for the court to compel Commerce to issue a final decision on its scope determination, the case is no longer necessary since Commerce actually made the scope decision. Further, CIT doesn't have jurisdiction over the case as Valeo claims, as jurisdiction now rests under a different portion of the law, given Commerce's final agency action, the motion said (Valeo North America v. United States, CIT #21-00426).

Norbert Basengezi Katintima, former vice president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's National Independent Electoral Commission (CENI), launched a case Nov. 5 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge his spot on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. Katintima is challenging the decision made by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control to deny his delisting application. The former CENI official says that the circumstances that contributed to his original listing have changed, necessitating his removal from the list (Norbert Basengezi Katintima v. Bradley Smith, et al., D.D.C. #21-02917).

The Commerce Department defended its actions to drop its reliance on Malaysian surrogate data in an antidumping duty investigation after the Court of International Trade raised questions over the distortive effects of forced labor in Malaysia. In a brief Nov. 4, Commerce said it was correct to use certain Mexican data instead of the Malaysian data (New American Keg, d/b/a American Keg Co. v. U.S., CIT #20-00008).

Three Court of International Trade cases filed by Janssen Ortho were assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves and stayed following prompting from Janssen and the Department of Justice. The three orders from CIT stay the cases for 90 days pending the calculation of refunds in another CIT case brought by Janssen since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion on appeal. In April, the Federal Circuit upheld Choe-Groves' decision that the active pharmaceutical ingredient imported by Janssen in one of its HIV medications is eligible for duty-free treatment (see 2104260034). Janssen and DOJ requested that Choe-Groves to be assigned to the cases since she presided over the original CIT case (see 2111010072) (Janssen Ortho LLC v. U.S., CIT #13-00052, #14-00094, #14-00198).

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

The Commerce Department continued to defend its use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty case despite recent claims that it has discredited its position on this program. In a Nov. 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that it is not simply compelled to rely on CVD respondents' statements that an alleged subsidy program was not used when a government fails to give information on how the program was administered to the point where verification of non-use is impossible (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings v. U.S., CIT #21-00166).

Antidumping duty review petitioner Maverick Tube Corporation's argument's against the Commerce Department's move to rely on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by the AD respondent misinterprets a key precedential decision, AD respondent Nexteel Co. argued in a Nov. 3 brief at the Court of International Trade. Instead, Commerce complied with the court's orders and the precedent set in this decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- Dillinger France S.A. v. United States -- when it reversed the adjustment to the respondent's reported costs (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00112).

CBP should have liquidated Accolade USA Inc.'s apparel imports at the transaction price between it and its Canadian parent company Accolade Group Inc. (AGI), Accolade USA argued in its Oct. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The apparel imports qualify for the transaction value since the relationship between AGI and Accolade USA doesn't impact the price paid for the apparel and the sale is made on the terms that it's for exportation to the U.S., the complaint said.

The Commerce Department's decision to reverse the adjustment to an antidumping duty review respondent's reported costs, relying instead on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by the respondent, complies with the standard set in the Dillinger France v. U.S decision, Commerce said. Replying to the antidumping respondent, Maverick Tube Corporation, in a Nov. 3 reply brief, Commerce said that its position did not require further consideration, but in fact a reversal, to comply with orders from the Court of International Trade (Husteel v. U.S., CIT #19-00112).