Jennifer Choe Groves

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved challenges by Chinese exporters Meihua, Jianlong, and Deosen to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review covering xanthan gum imports from China for 2019-2021. The plaintiffs disputed Commerce's application of adverse facts available to Meihua, its separate rate calculations, and its refusal to rescind review for certain companies or to treat affiliated entities as collapsed. The Court of International Trade remanded the final results to Commerce for reconsideration. The court held that Commerce abused its discretion by failing to conduct a collapsing analysis under its regulations for Deosen entities and that other determinations required reexamination for consistency with the record and applicable law.

business & regulatory

This case involves a challenge by Korean steel producers NEXTEEL and SeAH to the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping duty calculations for oil country tubular goods imported from Korea during 2015-2016. The Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce's third remand redetermination, which addressed issues including whether a particular market situation existed and the application of statistical methods like Cohen's d. The court sustained Commerce's determinations in part but remanded in part, ordering Commerce to add to the administrative record and reconsider academic literature cited in its prior decision that had not been formally included. The core reasoning was that Commerce had effectively relied on the literature in its analysis, making it part of the record that required proper consideration and inclusion for judicial review.

business & regulatory

The case involved SXP Schulz Xtruded Products LLC seeking a refund of Section 232 duties assessed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on five entries of imported steel products after the Department of Commerce granted an exclusion request, alleging that delays prevented timely protests. The plaintiff filed suit under the Court of International Trade's residual jurisdiction provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that Customs' liquidation decisions classifying the merchandise and assessing duties were protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514, so the plaintiff could have obtained review under § 1581(a) by filing timely protests (which it did for one entry but not the other four), and that alternative remedy was not manifestly inadequate.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involved Nucor Corporation challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in a countervailing duty administrative review of certain cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea. Nucor disputed Commerce's conclusion that the Korean government's provision of electricity did not confer a benefit by being sold for less than adequate remuneration. The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's determination. The court reasoned that record evidence, including questionnaire responses, demonstrated that the Korean steel producers paid standard electricity rates under applicable schedules, consistent with rates charged to other comparable users, resulting in no measurable subsidy.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Repwire LLC and Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer PTE, Ltd. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of aluminum wire and cable imports from China. Commerce had rejected Jin Tiong's questionnaire response and applied the China-wide entity antidumping duty rate of 52.79 percent after the company failed to submit a timely separate rate application or certification within the 30-day deadline following the review's initiation. The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's determination, holding that in non-market economy proceedings, exporters must affirmatively demonstrate independence from government control to qualify for a separate rate, and Jin Tiong's failure to meet the filing requirement reasonably supported treating it as part of the China-wide entity subject to the country-wide rate.

business & regulatory

This case involved the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping duty investigation of utility scale wind towers from Canada for the 2018-2019 period, in which Commerce assigned a 4.94 percent weighted-average dumping margin to Marmen. Following an earlier remand in Marmen I directing reconsideration of Marmen's cost reconciliation information and the use of the average-to-transaction differential pricing method with the Cohen's d test, Commerce issued a redetermination upholding its approach. The Court of International Trade sustained the redetermination, holding that Commerce reasonably applied the Cohen's d test to the full population of sales data rather than a sample, thereby addressing concerns from Stupp Corp. v. United States and complying with the prior order.

business & regulatory

The case involved BRAL Corporation challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of protests regarding duties assessed on twelve entries of plywood imported from China between 2017 and 2018. The importer claimed the plywood had a latent defect causing the melamine coating to separate, which warranted a reduced appraised value under 19 C.F.R. § 158.12(a). Both parties moved for summary judgment on issues including the existence of the defect, its timing before importation, and the proper allowance amount. The Court of International Trade denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact remained, particularly regarding whether the defect met regulatory requirements and the substantiation of an 18 percent salvage value claim based on limited evidence. The decision emphasized that unresolved factual disputes on these elements prevented judgment as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case from the U.S. Court of International Trade involved a challenge by Pirelli companies and a plaintiff-intervenor to the Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China for the 2017-2018 period. Plaintiffs contested Commerce's authority to impose a China-wide entity rate, its analysis of separate rate eligibility, and its finding that Pirelli was subject to de facto control by the Chinese government through ChemChina's ownership interests and board influence. On remand, Commerce reaffirmed its determinations, including that the mandatory respondent Shandong New Continent Tire had accurately reported sales data without fraud. The court sustained both the final results and remand results, holding that Commerce's conclusions on government control, separate rates, and data accuracy were supported by substantial evidence, such as corporate bylaws, shareholder agreements, and appointment records showing board influence by Chinese government-linked entities.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved PT. Zinus Global Indonesia challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value in an antidumping duty investigation concerning mattresses from Indonesia. The U.S. Court of International Trade reviewed multiple issues, including Commerce's choice of quarterly ratios methodology for sales quantities, use of specific financial statements for constructed value, calculation of a profit cap, adjustments to reported sales deductions, treatment of selling expenses, and application of the Transactions Disregarded Rule to input purchases. The court sustained Commerce's determinations on the quarterly ratios approach, financial statements, profit cap, and certain sales deduction adjustments as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. However, it remanded for reconsideration the inclusion of in-transit mattresses at the end of the period of investigation, adjustments to Zinus Korea's selling expenses, and the Transactions Disregarded Rule application.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved challenges by importers and related parties to tariffs imposed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative on certain Chinese goods, known as List 3 and List 4A, under section 307 of the Trade Act of 1974. The plaintiffs argued that the USTR exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act in promulgating these tariffs. After an initial remand for further explanation, the court reviewed the supplemented record and sustained the final versions of List 3 and List 4A. The court also granted the government's motion to correct and supplement the administrative record with additional contemporaneous documents. The decision upheld the tariffs as within the USTR's authority to modify prior actions based on changes in the burden on U.S. commerce.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved SeAH Steel Corporation and other Korean steel producers challenging the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in the 2016-2017 administrative review of antidumping duties on oil country tubular goods from Korea, specifically Commerce's use of a differential pricing analysis with the Cohen's d test and its treatment of inventory valuation losses in cost calculations. The Court of International Trade had previously sustained Commerce's determinations in earlier opinions. SeAH moved for reconsideration under USCIT Rule 59(e), arguing that a new Federal Circuit decision in Stupp Corp. v. United States required remand on the pricing analysis and that the court had erred on the inventory issue. The court denied the motion, finding that Stupp did not apply because Commerce used population data rather than samples, that SeAH presented no new controlling law or evidence, and that its arguments on inventory valuation had already been considered and rejected.

business & regulatory

The case involved SGS Sports Inc. challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's denial of duty-free treatment for imported swimwear and accessories under HTSUS subheading 9801.00.20, which requires export under a lease or similar use agreement. After a bench trial and rehearing on the validity of the agreement under Canadian law, the Court of International Trade granted the government's motion for rehearing and held that the Warehousing Agreement between SGS and a Canadian company constituted a valid lease or similar use agreement. The court reasoned that the agreement involved mutual understanding for warehousing services akin to a lease, with no evidence to pierce the corporate veil, and thus ordered a Phase Two trial to determine if the entries qualified for duty-free treatment.

business & regulatorytaxes

In Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, the plaintiff challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results from the 2018 administrative review of a countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Korea. The company contested Commerce’s findings that the government of Korea’s port usage rights program provided a countervailable benefit and that reduced sewerage usage fees involved both a financial contribution and a countervailable benefit. The court granted the government’s request for a remand on the sewerage fees issues and also remanded the port usage rights determination. It did so to permit Commerce to reconsider its determinations on these programs and address the legal challenges raised. The case was remanded with a schedule for Commerce to file new results by April 2023.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by Nucor Tubular Products Inc. to the U.S. Department of Commerce's final results in an antidumping duty administrative review concerning heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Mexico. Nucor argued that Commerce incorrectly rejected its comments on alleged ministerial errors in calculating dumping margins for two Mexican producers as untimely. The court determined that Commerce's rejection of the comments was not in accordance with the law and remanded the matter for further consideration. Additionally, the court granted Commerce's request for a remand regarding one producer to address potential errors in currency conversions used in the calculations.

business & regulatory