This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involved a challenge to the Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review concerning heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes imported from Mexico. After an initial remand in Nucor I, Commerce issued a redetermination that corrected errors in respondent Maquilacero's data selection and Prolamsa's currency conversion calculations for dumping margins. The court reviewed comments from the parties and concluded that Commerce's revised determinations were supported by substantial evidence and complied with the prior remand order. Accordingly, the court sustained the remand redetermination and entered judgment in favor of the agency.
The case concerned KG Dongbu Steel's challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the 2019 countervailing duty administrative review of corrosion-resistant steel products from Korea. Plaintiffs contested Commerce's findings that certain debt-to-equity restructurings provided countervailable subsidies, that benefits passed through despite an ownership change, and Commerce's calculations of uncreditworthy benchmarks and unequityworthy discount rates. The court remanded the final results to Commerce for reconsideration. It held that Commerce's determinations were not supported by substantial evidence because the agency failed to adequately address record evidence on the loan term length and its effects on the benchmark and discount rate calculations.
This case concerned a challenge by Pirelli Tyre companies and Shandong New Continent Tire to the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping duty administrative review results for passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China covering August 2017 to July 2018. The plaintiffs contested Commerce's authority to impose a China-wide entity rate, its analysis of separate rate eligibility, and its finding that Pirelli was under de facto control by the Chinese government via Chem China ownership and board influence. The court sustained Commerce's final results and remand redetermination, upholding the China-wide rate for Pirelli and confirming the accuracy of New Continent's reported sales data. It reasoned that Italian law provisions designating certain directors as independent did not rebut the presumption of Chinese government control, given evidence of Chem China's indirect ownership, role in board selections, and status as a major shareholder. The court granted a motion to alter judgment but ultimately affirmed the agency's determinations as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade challenges the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of oil country tubular goods imported from Korea for the 2019-2020 period. Various Korean steel producers contested Commerce's calculations of constructed value, profit cap, constructed export price, and the weighted-average dumping margin for non-examined companies, as well as certain adjustments to expense ratios and yield losses. The court remanded the constructed value, profit cap, constructed export price, and non-examined company margin calculations for further proceedings, while sustaining Commerce's adjustments to Hyundai Steel's general and administrative expense ratio, its reported further manufacturing yield loss, and its use of SeAH's business proprietary information. The court also held that NEXTEEL was not barred from relief despite not being a mandatory respondent. The decision is based on review of the administrative record under applicable trade statutes.
This case involves Mexican tomato producers and related associations challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final antidumping duty determination on fresh tomatoes from Mexico, consolidated across multiple complaints filed in the Court of International Trade. The court addressed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by the United States and the Florida Tomato Exchange. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) for claims 1(a), 1(c), and 2 through 10 challenging the final determination, while jurisdiction under § 1581(i) applies to claim 1(b), which was dismissed on the merits following a prior Federal Circuit affirmance. Certain claims were dismissed accordingly, one consolidated case was removed, and the remaining claims will proceed under the court's scheduling order.
This case involved a challenge by Nucor Corporation to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an administrative review of a countervailing duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel products from Korea. Nucor argued that the Government of Korea's provision of electricity to steel producers constituted a countervailable subsidy by providing it for less than adequate remuneration. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's determination that no such subsidy existed. The court found Commerce's conclusion supported by substantial evidence, including questionnaire responses showing that electricity rates followed standard schedules applied equally to all companies in the same consumption category and did not provide a measurable benefit to the respondents.
