Vietnamese circular welded steel pipe exporter SeAH Steel Vina denied in a Jan. 13 brief that it was confusing antidumping and countervailing duty reviews with circumvention inquiries. Leaning on Loper Bright, it again argued that circumvention inquiries can’t be conducted into the same products from the same countries if they were previously found not to have been dumped or subsidized (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 sustained CBP's decision on remand to find that importer Zinus didn't evade the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China. The agency made the decision after incorporating a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that seven models of metal and wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the AD order (see 2501130011) (Zinus v. United States, CIT # 23-00272).

Exporters PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia and PT Grantec Jaya Indonesia -- two companies collapsed into one for antidumping duty procedural purposes -- took to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 21 to contest the 2022-23 review of the AD order on mattresses from Indonesia. Ecos/Grantec challenged the Commerce Department's determination to adjust three expense fields to include "overpaid allowances," along with the agency's adjustments to the companies' total cost of manufacturing under the "transactions disregarded" provision of U.S. antidumping law (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. United States, CIT # 24-00238).

The U.S. filed Jan. 21 to dismiss a 2024 case brought by importer Houston Shutters under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, saying the true nature of the action is a challenge to a scope determination and that the action should have been brought under Section 1581(c) instead (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193).

The Commerce Department doesn't fail to act when it denies a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion request, the Court of International Trade held. Instead, the denial is a "decision" and "not an action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed," Judge Stephen Vaden said, dismissing a host of claims from importer Prysmian Cables and Systems USA against Commerce's rejection of its exclusion requests.

Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden earlier this month said he is working on two decisions to be issued simultaneously in a case on the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury determination on phosphate fertilizers. In a text-only order, the judge said one opinion will deal with the merits of the appeal, while the other will address the court's issue with the commission's treatment of confidential information (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

In a complaint before the Court of International Trade filed Jan. 20, two exporters alleged that the Commerce Department failed to correct multiple ministerial errors during an antidumping duty review on Chinese activated carbon (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00262).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 21 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's remand results in the expedited countervailing duty review on softwood lumber products from Canada, in a confidential decision. Judge Mark Barnett sent the review back for Commerce to "reconsider or further explain its subsidy calculations with respect to" the consolidated entity of D&G/Portbec. The court found for the government on the remaining issues (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).

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.

Responding to U.S. opposition to its summary judgment motion, importer Mitsubishi Power Americas said Jan. 17 that the government “proffered nothing to dispute” expert testimony that shows its products are neither filters nor purifiers and misunderstood the way they actually work (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).