A steelmaker petitioner opposed the results of the Commerce Department’s second remand in a case challenging the results of a 2018 administrative review on South Korean carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, saying that Commerce didn’t explain why the petitioner hadn’t provided enough evidence to prompt the agency to examine a particular subsidy (Nucor v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 26 granted the U.S. request for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case led by American Pacific Plywood to address the Federal Circuit's holding in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not providing it with access to confidential business information in the investigation (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2321).

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

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif heard oral argument Jan. 18 in a case concerning the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Vietnam. Parties discussed the Commerce Department’s reliance on incomplete records and public access to a surrogate’s financial information (Ashley Furniture Industries v. U.S., CIT # 21-00283).

DOJ’s motion to bar a wristwatch exporter from using a late discovery production in any subsequent proceedings, or alternatively to reopen discovery, is just an “illusory claim” because no new information has actually surfaced, the exporter argued Jan. 24 at the Court of International Trade (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00136).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 25 granted the U.S. government's unopposed motion to voluntarily remand an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the appellate court's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by failing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).

The Court of International Trade asked parties in nine cases challenging the Commerce Department's circumvention investigation on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam for a briefing on whether a test case should be designated. In a Jan. 19 order, Judge M. Miller Baker bifurcated the motion for summary judgment procedure for a joint status report and proposed briefing schedule. All parties were asked to submit a joint status report no later than Feb. 9 to answer the question on consolidation (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00221, -00222, -00223, -00224, -00225, -00226, -00227, -00228, -00229).

A German forged steel fluid end block exporter Jan. 22 for the most part supported the U.S. position in a remand redetermination that the Commerce Department couldn't make PMS adjustments for costs of production in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. It argued, however, that the department failed to address illegitimate PMS adjustments for two inputs for comparisons based on constructed value (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00077).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 vacated its judgment in a customs case brought by Jing Mei Automotive (USA) under the court's Rule 60(a), which allows the court to correct clerical mistakes or mistakes stemming from oversight or omission. The judgment denied Jing Mei's motion for summary judgment and addressed four different categories of the importer's car parts. The court's Jan. 16 order didn't identify the clerical error (Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States, CIT # 13-00321).

The U.S. defended its use of Malaysian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 to value antidumping duty respondents' carbonized material over basket category 4402.90, telling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it permissibly selected the more specific heading as part of an AD review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).