Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. filed a complaint with the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's finding that a countervailable subsidy existed in the form of Vietnam's currency manipulation practices (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00397). KTV was a respondent in the CVD investigation of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Vietnam. In Commerce's final determination, KTV got hit with a 7.89% subsidy rate. In the complaint, KTV challenged three parts of this final determination, which include the finding that KTV got a countervailable benefit through its land-use rights, "even though Plaintiff’s acquisition of such rights pre-dated Vietnam’s accession to the World Trade Organization," through Vietnam's currency practices and through Vietnam's import-duty exemptions program for imported inputs used in exported products

Plaintiff Nucor Corp. ignored the "thorough explanation" that the Commerce Department gave in its remand results showing how the agency conducted its less-than-adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis regarding the electricity market in South Korea, the U.S. said in a Sept. 7 reply brief. Further backing its remand at the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice argued that Commerce's remand complies with the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by properly analyzing whether the Korean Electricity Corp. (KEPCO) recovered its costs of production plus a profit (POSCO, et al. v. United States, CIT #17-00137).

SMA Surfaces, Inc., formerly known as Polarstone US, and Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. each filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging two different scope rulings on antidumping and countervailing duty orders. SMA challenged the Commerce Department's decision to not exclude three specific surface products from the AD/CVD orders on quartz surface products from China, while Cheng Shin appealed Commerce's decision to not exclude the company's light-truck spare tire models from the less-than-fair-value investigation into passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (SMA Surfaces, Inc. (F/K/A Polarstone US) v. U.S., CIT #21-00399) (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

The Commerce Department dropped a particular market situation adjustment from a sales-below-cost test in an antidumping duty investigation, in its remand results filed at the Court of International Trade, concurrent with a court decision instructing it to do so. The agency maintains that a PMS existed for South Korean steel inputs but concedes that the court's interpretation of the law does not permit an adjustment to the cost of production for the PMS in the sales-below-cost test. The remand rate dropped for mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel Co. from 30.85% to 12.92% and for non-examined respondent SeAH Steel Corp. from 19.28% to 9.99% (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00154).

The Justice Department should not be permitted an extension of time to respond to a complaint and file the administrative record in a Court of International Trade challenge of Commerce Department assessment instructions issued for hot-rolled steel imported by Optima Steel International, the steel distributor said in a Sept. 7 filing, adding it is "extremely frustrated" with another request for delay. The defendant's request should be denied since it "requests far too much time to accomplish the tasks identified, and cites to no good cause other than a claim of internal deliberations that might yield a resolution," the brief said. Also, there's no reason DOJ can't answer the complaint and file the administrative record while the government discusses how to resolve the issues raised in the litigation, Optima argued. "The two are not mutually exclusive," it said (Optima Steel Internaitonal, LLC et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mandate Sept. 7 in a case in which it dismissed the proceedings due to a lack of jurisdiction. In its July 14 opinion, the Federal Circuit said that the Court of International Trade was correct in dismissing an importer's challenge of CBP's assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties (see 2107140028). The plaintiff, TR International Trading Co., erred when it filed its case under the trade court's Section 1581(i) "residual" jurisdiction, since it could have challenged a denied protest under Section 1581(a) or a scope ruling under Section 1581(c), rendering Section 1581(i) unavailable, the appellate court said. In particular, TRI challenged CBP's finding that the company's citric acid imports from India were of Chinese origin and subject to AD/CV duties (TR International Trading Company, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00022). CAFC ordered TRI to pay court costs totaling $28.32 to the U.S. government.

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' Court of International Trade case challenging CBP's antidumping and countervailing duty evasion finding should continue, even though the relevant entries have liquidated, because the lawsuit was properly filed under Section 1581(c), the company said in a Sept. 1 reply brief. Responding to a partial motion to dismiss from the Department of Justice, Dr. Bronner's said that since the Enforce and Protect Act, under which the evasion finding was made, is codified under 19 USC 1517, the proper jurisdiction for its challenge of an EAPA investigation is Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00164).

Two Alaskan shipping companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, filed for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order against CBP penalties for seafood shipments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. CBP recently continued to issue the penalty notices for companies shipping Alaskan seafood from Alaska to the eastern U.S. via the Bayside, New Brunswick, Canada, port, alleging Jones Act violations. The two companies challenged these penalties in the district court, declaring that they have essentially shut down this critical shipping route that had been previously cleared by CBP as complying with the Jones Act.

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.