A Spanish aluminum exporter argued June 11 that the Commerce Department is unlawfully restricting its statutory requirement to consider levels of trade when calculating normal value by requiring there be “substantial differences,” rather than plain “differences,” in those levels to trigger that analysis (Compania Valencia De Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00259).

The U.S. and exporter Kaptan Demir told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department "is afforded substantial deference in interpreting" whether an input is "primarily dedicated" to the production of its downstream product for purposes of assigning subsidies given to the input supplier to the downstream product maker (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).

A steel importer whose Section 232 exclusion denials case has been winding through the Court of International Trade since 2021 said again June 10, in support of its remand comments (see 2404090067), that a competitor and domestic supplier provably hasn’t been able to provide enough steel for the importer’s needs since 2018 (California Steel Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00015).

Antidumping duty petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reject exporter Oman Fasteners' notice of supplemental authority regarding a Court of International Trade ruling on the Commerce Department's filing deadlines (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

After a remand order forced the Commerce Department to use Brazilian rather than Mexican labor cost data in calculating two Chinese exporters’ value, those exporters pushed back on the decision and the subsequent increase they saw in their own antidumping duties (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision granted the government's motion to dismiss a case from importer Greentech Energy Solutions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until June 17 to review the confidential decision so the court can publish the opinion. Greentech brought the suit under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, to contest the antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cell entries from Vietnam, claiming that the lack of dumping, subsidization or injury finding on Vietnamese solar cells made the duties illegal (see 2306130025). The U.S. said the court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP first to contest the duties (see 2312260052) (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).

A tire importer opposed a motion to dismiss its case for lack of jurisdiction June 7, arguing that the Court of International Trade could preside because CBP had made a relevant protestable decision -- the decision to delay an admissibility determination (Inspired Ventures, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

Exporter Oman Fasteners said a recent Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's filing deadlines supports its claim at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that one "inadvertent missed deadline 'without more'" doesn't support the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case. Oman Fasteners filed a notice of supplemental authority on June 10 calling the appellate court's attention to CIT's holding in Cambria Co. v. U.S. (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).