The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a June 13 opinion rejected Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska's challenge to his sanctions listing, granting the Office of Foreign Assets Control's motion for summary judgment. Deripaska, who argued his listing as part of the wave of sanctions in the wake of Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 violated multiple procedural and constitutional rights. Deripaska claimed that OFAC violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by “relying on undisclosed classified information and failing to provide him with adequately detailed unclassified summaries of that information.” Deripaska is a “non-resident alien who lacks sufficient contact with the United States” to bring a due process challenge, Judge Amit Mehta said. Mehta said that “even if the court were to consider Deripaska’s due process claim on the merits, it would reject it” because the International Emergency Economic Powers Act explicitly says that OFAC can rely on classified information in its determinations.

Russian and Swiss exporters Novolipetsk Steel Public Joint Stock Co. and NOVEX Trading (Swiss) SA will appeal an April 13 Court of International Trade decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a June 14 notice of appeal said. The appeal comes after the exporters lost their challenge to the final determination in the 2017-18 antidumping administrative review of certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Russia. Judge Claire Kelly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, saying they lacked standing because they had no entries during the period of review and didn't contend they were resellers of the subject merchandise (Novolipetsk Steel Public Joint Stock Co. et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-00031).

The Commerce Department will move the date of imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on a subset of steel trailer wheels from China to the date of publication of the final determination in the investigation, rather than the date of the preliminary determination, it said a pair of remand results filed June 14. The Court of International Trade told Commerce May 18 to make the switch, finding that the agency did not provide proper notice of a scope change during the proceeding (see 2105180062). In two filings, one for the antidumping case and one for the countervailing duty case, Commerce said that it intends to issue instructions to CBP to exclude plaintiffs Trans Texas Tire and Zhejiang Jingu Co.'s entries of physical vapor deposition (PVD) chrome wheels entered between Feb. 25, 2019, and June 24, 2019, from the scope of the investigation (Trans Texas Tire, LLC v. United States, CIT #19-00188-00189).

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

The Court of International Trade sustained the final results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman, in a June 14 decision. Judge Richard Eaton held that there was substantial evidence to back the Commerce Department's decision to use a Japanese company's financial statement to determine constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses for mandatory respondent Oman Fasteners, as opposed to an Indian company's financial statement as favored by petitioner and plaintiff in the case, Mid Continent Steel & Wire.

President Donald Trump properly eliminated a tariff exemption for bifacial solar panels since a majority of the representatives of the domestic industry, by volume, filed a petition to remove the exemption, the Department of Justice said in a June 11 brief in the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from the Solar Energy Industries Association, the Justice Department contested the trade group's assertion that the withdrawal of the exemption was merely based on a "head count" (Solar Energy Industries Association et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03941).

Oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. on June 17 on a motion for a preliminary injunction to freeze liquidation of unliquidated entries from China with lists 3 or 4A tariff exposure in the ongoing litigation over the tariffs led by HMTX and Jasco at the Court of International Trade (see 2106140056). The public can listen through a dial-in audio feed by calling 1-855-244-8681, access code 172 077 0162. There is no need to register to listen to the proceeding, CIT said on its website.

The Commerce Department will reconsider its decision to reallocate the cost of production for antidumping administrative review respondent Nexteel Co.'s non-prime products to account for their losses when calculating constructed value, the Court of International Trade said in a June 7 ruling made public on June 15. Issuing her second remand in the case brought from steel producers Husteel Co. and Nexteel over the 2016-17 AD administrative review of welded line pipe from Korea, Judge Claire Kelly sustained all other determinations made by Commerce.

A far-reaching legal challenge to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs brought by ME Global was stayed by the Court of International Trade pending an appeal of a related case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a June 14 stay order (ME Global, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00130) The Federal Circuit case, Universal Steel Products, Inc. v. United States, carries arguments similar to those in ME Global's case in that both claim that procedural requirements were ignored in President Donald Trump's expansion of the tariffs (see 2105250077).

A challenge to Section 232 tariffs on steel “derivatives” brought by Tempo Global Resources will have to wait until after a key appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of International Trade said in a June 14 stay order. In a related case, PrimeSource Building Products Inc. v. United States, CIT found the tariff expansion onto steel and aluminum derivatives to be in violation of congressionally mandated time limits. On June 4, the Justice Department alerted the court of its intention to appeal to the Federal Circuit (see 2106110040) (Tempo Global Resources LLC v. United States, CIT #20-00066).