The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available on countervailing duty respondent Risen Energy Co. for the Chinese government's failure to cooperate regarding the Export Buyer's Credit Program "fails to properly understand the Court precedent on this matter," Risen argued. Submitting a reply brief on July 26 at the Court of International Trade, the exporter said that while the U.S. "may be correct" that using AFA on a cooperative respondent due to the Chinese government's failure to cooperate may be legal, the court has cautioned Commerce "to mitigate the impact on the cooperating party" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S. CIT # 22-00231).

The Court of International Trade in a July 28 order upheld CBP's finding on remand that importer Diamond Tools Technology didn't evade the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. The evasion finding applies to DTT's imports of diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand but made with Chinese cores and segments brought in before Dec. 1, 2017. CBP made the decision under respectful protest on remand upon finding that DTT did not make false statements to the agency given the court's interpretation of Commerce's understanding of the scope.

The Commerce Department improperly refused to accept relevant factual information submitted by importer Shelter Forest International Acquisition showing that its hardwood plywood was actually made in Vietnam and not China, Shelter Forest said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said that its submissions show that its products imported from Vietnamese producer Lechenwood were made of hardwood plywood with a core made in Vietnam, thus excluding the goods from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China per Commerce's own definition (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. United States, CIT # 23-00144).

President Joe Biden's two nominees to fill vacancies at the Court of International Trade, Schagrin Associates' Joseph Laroski and the Commerce Department's Lisa Wang (see 2307120021), went before the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing on July 26. The two nominees faced questioning from the senators, including inquiries into their backgrounds and how their past experiences will shape their decision-making on the bench.

The Commerce Department has “never specified the scope, content or format” of a certification that a company’s U.S. customers didn't benefit from China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program, so the agency shouldn't have immediately applied adverse facts available to a Chinese exporter because its non-use certification didn’t fulfill its requirements, the exporter, Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber (GRT), said in a reply brief filed with the Court of International Trade July 21 (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00229).

CBP violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights by failing to provide it access to business confidential information (BCI) in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a highly anticipated opinion on July 27.

The Court of International Trade in a July 26 order granted a stay in two cases challenging the expansion of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties on derivative products until 30 days after importer PrimeSource Building Products' appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S. is resolved. PrimeSource indicated it was appealing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling upholding the tariff expansion to the Supreme Court earlier this month (see 2307240022). The two cases newly stayed by the trade court were brought by importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu said their proceedings will be stayed until PrimeSource's suit "becomes final, including all appeals and remand proceedings" (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053).

The Commerce Department, on remand at the Court of International Trade, incorporated information from antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. regarding its service-related revenues and expenses, slashing the exporter's dumping rate from 16.13% to 4.69%. Commerce solicited this information from the company after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told the agency to let Hyundai supplement the record (Hitachi Energy USA v. U.S., CIT # 16-00054).

A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The Commerce Department improperly used Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping because the agency violated statistical assmptions inherent to the test, SeAH Steel told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the opening brief of its appeal. While Commerce justified its use of the test because it used a whole population, not a sample, SeAH said the academic literature shows the d test was meant to be used as a measure of effect size only when the data comes from samples with "normal distributions, with roughly equal variance, and a sufficient number of data-points" (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).