The Court of International Trade should dismiss an importer's lawsuit that improperly challenges CBP assessments of antidumping and countervailing duties rather than the underlying duty calculations done by the Commerce Department, the government said in a June 8 brief. The trade court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the true nature of importer Rimco's claim is a challenge to the amount of duties determined by Commerce rather than the enforcement by CBP, DOJ said. The protest and subsequent suit are an attempt to "hide its own failure to challenge Commerce's determinations when it had the opportunity" by essentially circumventing administrative avenues for addressing AD/CVD rate calculations, the government said (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00537).

The Court of International Trade in a May 31 opinion made public June 10 sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. The U.S. Steel Corporation filed the case to argue that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) reimbursed the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas for the antidumping duties paid on the subject entries by decreasing the invoice price by the amount of the duties, and that Commerce should've deducted from the exporter's U.S. price because of it. Judge Richard Eaton said this was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser," and that no evidence was presented that would prove the importer was reimbursed.

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

The Court of International Trade, in three related opinions, rejected reconsideration bids from a series of domestic manufacturers and producers of a wide range of goods covered by antidumping duty orders for the court to vacate or modify certain claims as being time barred. The reconsideration motions concern whether certain claims seeking payouts of delinquency interest under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 were timely filed. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that the plaintiffs "have not put forth a valid reason why the court should vacate or modify the decision."

Attorneys for RH Peterson asked the Court of International Trade to set aside a dismissal entered by the court clerk on June 3, which cited "lack of prosecution" as a reason for dismissal following a missed filing deadline by the importer. RH Peterson's attorneys said that they believed the filing deadline to avoid the dismissal was at the end of June, according to a June 6 motion to reinstate the case (RH Peterson Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00099).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department erred by finding that South Korea's provision of electricity below cost "conferred a non-measurable benefit," countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a June 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nucor railed against the "evidentiary flaws" Commerce relied on from cost data from South Korea's sole supplier of electricity, the Korean Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), but said that even using this data, it's clear that a benefit was conferred to the mandatory respondents (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in three cases challenging an antidumping duty investigation's final determination subject to a suspension agreement. In the opinions, the appellate court held that the plaintiff-appellants have the right to judicially challenge the final determination even if they're subject to a suspension agreement, though it did dismiss many of the claims made in the actual actions (Red Sun Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2230) (Confederacion de Asociaciones Agricolas del Estado de Sinaloa v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2232) (Jem D International (Michigan) Inc. USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1292).

Magnesia alumina carbon (MAC) brick exporter Fedmet Resources' move to oppose the U.S. stay motion in an Enforce and Protect Act case only delays resolution, DOJ argued in a June 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Fedmet opposes the stay and seeks the filing of a voluntary remand in a window that the U.S. says is impossible since it needs a covered merchandise referral determination from the Commerce Department -- the matter at the heart of the contested stay motion (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT #21-00248).