The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 1-7:

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

The Commerce Department wants another chance to consider a countervailing duty review after it learned more about the alleged benefit conferred to the respondent, the Department of Justice said in an unopposed remand motion filed Nov. 8 at the Court of International Trade. In particular, Commerce wants to reconsider a South Korean government program relating to the payments of sewerage fees that allegedly gave respondent Hyundai Steel Co.a countervailable benefit (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00012).

A recent Commerce Department scope ruling nullifies importer Valeo North America's case at the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in its Nov. 1 motion to dismiss. Seeing as Valeo sought for the court to compel Commerce to issue a final decision on its scope determination, the case is no longer necessary since Commerce actually made the scope decision. Further, CIT doesn't have jurisdiction over the case as Valeo claims, as jurisdiction now rests under a different portion of the law, given Commerce's final agency action, the motion said (Valeo North America v. United States, CIT #21-00426).

The Commerce Department did not abuse its discretion when it denied a group of domestic chloropicrin producers' bid to retroactively extend a filing deadline, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 8 opinion. Not buying the plaintiffs' excuses that the deadline was missed due to a combination of technical and medical issues, Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld Commerce's rejection of the extension requests following revocation of the relevant AD duty order because of the missed deadline.

Three Court of International Trade cases filed by Janssen Ortho were assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves and stayed following prompting from Janssen and the Department of Justice. The three orders from CIT stay the cases for 90 days pending the calculation of refunds in another CIT case brought by Janssen since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion on appeal. In April, the Federal Circuit upheld Choe-Groves' decision that the active pharmaceutical ingredient imported by Janssen in one of its HIV medications is eligible for duty-free treatment (see 2104260034). Janssen and DOJ requested that Choe-Groves to be assigned to the cases since she presided over the original CIT case (see 2111010072) (Janssen Ortho LLC v. U.S., CIT #13-00052, #14-00094, #14-00198).

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

The Commerce Department continued to defend its use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty case despite recent claims that it has discredited its position on this program. In a Nov. 2 brief filed at the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that it is not simply compelled to rely on CVD respondents' statements that an alleged subsidy program was not used when a government fails to give information on how the program was administered to the point where verification of non-use is impossible (Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings v. U.S., CIT #21-00166).

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

Acer America and its repair and service subsidiary joined the massive Section 301 litigation, alleging in a complaint Monday (in Pacer, case 21-00575) at the U.S. Court of International Trade that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1974 Trade Act and the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports. Acer’s complaint cites tariff exposure to 16 classifications of goods on List 3 and four on List 4A, including for PCs, speakers and projectors. Acer’s law firm is Akin Gump, which crafted the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint in September 2020 that springboarded the roughly 3,800 nearly identical actions to follow, all seeking to have the tariff rulemakings vacated and the duties refunded with interest. HMTX-Jasco is the designated sample case, and Akin Gump’s deadline is Nov. 15 for filing papers supporting its Aug. 2 motion for judgment on the agency record. It’s the final entry on the court’s April 13 scheduling order. Oral argument is expected next, possibly as soon as December.