Exporter Evraz Inc. moved to dismiss its own antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 22 notice of dismissal. The case concerns the Commerce Department's final results in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada. Evraz moved to dismiss the case under CIT's rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which says that the plaintiff can dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT #23-00012).
U.S. Steel Corp. filed a second bid to intervene in a Court of International Trade case over an International Trade Commission injury proceeding, arguing that it meets the standard for permissive intervention since the outcome of the case could "jeopardize the antidumping order that U.S. Steel petitioned for and now benefits from." U.S. Steel also said that "it makes logical sense to allow" its intervention since its arguments will center on whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Eregli Demir ve Celik's claims, and the jurisdictional issue will "impact the companion cases where U.S. Steel has a statutory right to intervene" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 17 opinion made public Feb. 24 upheld the Commerce Department's interpretation of the Major Inputs Rule to allow the use of third-country surrogate data as "information available" for finding the cost of production of a major input bought from an affiliated non-market economy-based supplier.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Defendant-intervenor Endura Products dropped out of an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade after its bid for a stay in the action pending the resolution of a scope proceeding also at the trade court was denied (see 2302060069). Submitting a motion to withdraw Feb. 21, Endura said it "no longer has an interest in the current appeal" (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).
The question of whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations constitutes a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress as established in the Supreme Court's West Virginia v. EPA decision, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations said in a supplemental brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 22 (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Alternative characteristics used by the Commerce Department that were supplied by antidumping duty respondent LG Chem to set control numbers (CONNUMs) in an AD investigation had no relationship to actual prices and costs, and are distortive and create the potential for manipulation, AD petitioner The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers said in a Feb. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00010).
A Commerce remand determination on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes should be upheld by the Court of International Trade despite a separate Commerce remand redetermination that dual-stenciled pipe and tube is not covered by an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, the government argued in a brief filed Feb. 17 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00627).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Feb. 13-19: