Exporter POSCO argued on Nov. 5 that the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below costs is de facto specific is unsupported by substantial evidence. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade, POSCO said Commerce's specificity finding "relies on a random grouping of the steel industry with two other unrelated industries" to find that the steel industry gets a disproportionate amount of the subsidy (POSCO v. United States, CIT # 24-00006).

In a motion for judgment, several Chinese tire exporters argued that the Commerce Department’s calculation of their antidumping duty rate in a recent administrative review misrepresented a mandatory respondent’s costs after Commerce applied a single per-unit expense for all boat freight without adjusting for distance (Giti Tire Global Trading v. U.S., CIT #24-00083).

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 Court of International Trade rejected importer Retractable Technologies' bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction stopping the collection of Section 301 duties on its needles and syringes. However, in a decision made public Nov. 4, Judge Claire Kelly did stop liquidation of Retractable's entries during the course of the company's suit, which challenges the legality of a Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes.

For the third time, the U.S. supported the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in which it refused to look into South Korea’s provision of off-peak electricity at lower prices (see 2304260018) (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).

The Commerce Department reasonably used exporter San Shing Fastech Corp.'s financial statements to calculate constructed value profit and selling expenses for respondent Your Standing International in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from Taiwan, the U.S. argued in a response to Your Standing's motion for judgment (Your Standing International v. United States, CIT # 24-00055).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 1 dismissed importer Travelway Group International's customs suit for lack of prosecution. The company put its action on the customs case management calendar but failed to remove it or request an extension before time expired. Travelway brought the suit to argue that its backpacks and bags of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131 qualify for Section 301 exclusions. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT # 22-00312).

A recent Court of International Trade decision is relevant to settle whether the Drug Enforcement Administration is vested with the authority to make admissibility decisions on imports, importer Unichem Enterprises told the trade court on Nov. 1. Filing a notice of supplemental authority, Unichem said the decision, Inspired Ventures v. U.S., also will help resolve whether CBP "usurps the Court's authority when it seizes merchandise for forfeiture that is within the Court's jurisdiction" (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).

The U.S. on Nov. 1 defended the Commerce Department's decision on remand to not grant exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals a constructed export price offset in the antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India. The government said Gujarat failed to provide a quantitative analysis that would justify the offset (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).

In response to the government (see 2409240057), a Turkish steel exporter again said Nov. 1 that the dates of its U.S. sales should be determined by its contract dates, not the dates on its invoices (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).