This case involves a challenge by domestic steel producers and a German exporter to the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping determination and remand redeterminations concerning forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. The court addressed whether Commerce could apply particular market situation adjustments to the exporter's costs under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A) in the sales-below-cost test, as well as the evidentiary support for findings on subsidized electricity rates and imported ferrochrome inputs. The court held that the statute does not authorize such PMS adjustments under that provision because it would render other statutory subsections superfluous. It sustained Commerce's statutory interpretation but remanded for further explanation on the particularity of electricity market distortions, the role of foreign suppliers in price distortions, and the impact of parallel countervailing duties. The court ordered Commerce to file a new remand redetermination within 90 days.
This case concerns a challenge by U.S. steel companies to the Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy for the 2020-2021 period. The plaintiffs contested Commerce's selection of surrogate data for calculating constructed value selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit, as well as its valuation and adjustment of a major input purchased from an affiliated supplier. The Court of International Trade sustained portions of Commerce's determinations but remanded the matter in part, directing Commerce to explain or reconsider its acceptance of certain submissions and its application of market price adjustments for inputs. The court reasoned that the record lacked sufficient explanation for Commerce's choices regarding surrogate sources and logistical adjustments, drawing on precedents allowing use of facts available to fill gaps but requiring adequate justification.
This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerns discovery disputes in an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) challenging Customs' denial of protests regarding steel product classifications tied to Section 232 exclusion requests. Plaintiff G&H Diversified Manufacturing LP moved for a ruling permitting Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices directed at the Bureau of Industry and Security and Customs and Border Protection, while the United States sought a protective order limiting or blocking those notices and related topics. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, allowing depositions naming the specific agencies, and granted in part the defendant's protective order by narrowing several deposition topics to those relevant and proportional to the claims, such as interagency coordination on exclusion requests and Customs' role, while rejecting broader requests on internal BIS guidance or unrelated processes under USCIT Rule 26(b)(1) standards for relevance and burden.
The case involves Veregy Central, LLC challenging the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Commerce on solar modules imported from Thailand and Vietnam in 2022, which the company argued should have been exempt under a presidential proclamation and Commerce's Duty Suspension Rule implementing it. The plaintiff alleged that its entries were not subject to duties due to the rule and sought relief on multiple counts related to liquidation and corrective actions. Defendants moved to stay the proceedings pending the Federal Circuit's resolution of a related appeal in Auxin Solar, which addresses the validity of the Duty Suspension Rule. The court granted the stay, reasoning that the outcome in Auxin Solar would likely determine or moot the core issues here, including whether the entries qualified for duty suspension, to promote judicial efficiency and avoid inconsistent results.
This case involves a challenge by two Chinese magnesium producers to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in an antidumping duty administrative review covering pure magnesium from China for the period May 2022 through April 2023. The plaintiffs contested Commerce’s selection of Türkiye as the primary surrogate country instead of Bulgaria and raised concerns about the reliability of certain surrogate values, including for electricity. The court sustained Commerce’s selection of Türkiye, finding it met statutory criteria and was supported by substantial evidence, including the agency’s consideration of economic comparability and data quality. However, the court remanded the matter for further explanation or reconsideration of the specific surrogate value chosen for electricity.
This case involved a challenge by Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. to a finding by U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the company's aluminum extrusions were produced using forced labor in violation of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, making them subject to import restrictions. The court had previously ruled the finding arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and vacated it, remanding to the agency. Defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing that vacatur was not required, but the court denied the motion. The core reasoning was that defendants had not raised any argument against vacatur in their initial briefing despite the plaintiff's request for that remedy, effectively acquiescing to the default APA remedy of remand with vacatur, and new arguments on reconsideration are waived.