The Commerce Department erred by calculating a single weighted-averge steel plate cost for all home and U.S. market sales in the 2020-21 antidumping duty administrative review on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, respondent Dongkuk S&C Co. argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. In the review, Commerce disregarded the actual steel plate costs linked with each individual project, via cost "smoothing" (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00075).

The Court of International Trade should overturn the Commerce Department's denials of Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products by Seneca Foods, because the denials ignored evidence against an objector's claim that it could provide domestic tin mill products to make up the shortfall, Seneca argued in a May 2 reply brief (Seneca Foods Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00243).

The Commerce Department can't use total adverse facts available for countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a decision released to the public May 3. While Ancientree only submitted loan information for most but not all of its customers, the trade court found perfection is not required to verify non-use of the program.

The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's remand results finding that MSeafood Corp. did not evade antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from India by transshipping its products through Vietnam. Judge Claire Kelly said she found CBP's Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate's affirmative evasion finding unsupported but sustained the CBP's Office of Regulations and Ruling's negative evasion finding. The judge added that, while she found CBP's explanation of its treatment of confidential information "inadequate," the deficiency is "harmless given the judicial protective order issued in the case."

The Court of International Trade on May 2 upheld a CBP evasion finding in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, with Judge Jane Restani finding that the standard for initiation of an EAPA investigation is low and that the "voluminous evidence" provided by an initial allegation filed by M&B meets both the government’s and importer CEK Group's proposed standards of reasonable suggestion.

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s determination that the South Korean government did not subsidize Hyundai Steel by providing electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR), the DOJ argued in an April 28 motion. The motion came in reply to requests for judgment filed by Hyundai Steel and consolidated-plaintiff Nucor, which contested separate aspects of the final results of a 2019 countervailing duty review on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).

The Commerce Department's denial of LE Commodities' 14 requests for exclusions from paying Section 232 duties on speciality steel products constitutes a "blatant disregard of its obligation to engage in fair, reasoned decision-making," LE Commodities said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The agency failed to consider evidence establishing that the steel products were not reasonably available in the U.S. in a "sufficient quantity," the importer said, and didn't provide a sufficiently reasoned basis for each of its decisions rejecting the exclusion requests (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).

CBP illegally denied importer Atlas Power's protest claiming its NVIDIA CMP 170HX printed circuit assemblies were exempt from Section 301 duties, Atlas said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said its assemblies, classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.30.1180, qualify for a Section 301 exclusion for unfinished logic boards (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).

Worn clothing commingled with other apparel bound for recycling should be eligible for duty-free treatment, importer Dis Vintage argued in a May 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The merchandise at issue is worn clothing imported to be recycled or for continued use as clothing. Dis Vintage asked the court to find the worn clothing was properly classified under the duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6309.00.100 and to refund all duties plus interest (Dis Vintage v. U.S., CIT # 23-00033).

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative was within its discretion when it declined to reinstate a Section 301 tariff exclusion on water coolers even after the only opposing party withdrew its comments, the DOJ said in an April 28 response to DS Services of America's remand comments at the Court of International Trade (DS Services of America v. United States, CIT # 22-00157).