The International Trade Commission incorrectly found that imports of cut-to-length plate from Brazil did not threaten domestic producers, in its five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, domestic producer Cleveland-Cliffs said in a March 31 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Cleveland-Cliffs v. U.S., CIT # 23-00050).

Brazilian honey producer Supermel didn't fail to provide information to the Commerce Department during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil and the agencyt's subsequent use of adverse facts available was incorrect, Supermel said in an April 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. U.S., CIT # 22-00185).

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 on April 3 again sent back Commerce’s third remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Taiwan.

A recent Court of International Trade decision over how to value plywood imports claimed to be defective should inspire attorneys who draft international purchase agreements to double-check the language in those deals, Barnes Richardson customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman said in an April 1 blog post. Customs attorneys should ensure their agreements have language declaring "Merchandise shall be delivered free of defects, including latent defects, and suitable to its intended use," or some similar provision, Friedman said, noting that he lacks expertise in contract language.

Entries of dual-stenciled pipe made before Commerce initiated a scope inquiry should be out of scope of an antidumping duty order on circular welded pipe, regardless of a pending appeal of that determination, Blue Pipe said in its March 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Blue Pipe also continued to argue that all of its imported pipe is not within scope. Even if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds the evasion determination was lawful, Blue Pipe asked it to overturn CBP’s decision to apply the evasion determination to entries made before Commerce initiated its scope inquiry (Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00081).

Imported "LED lighting products" are properly classified as light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, not subject to Section 232 tariffs, importer Super Bright LEDs argued in a March 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Super Bright asked the court to reclassify its imported lights under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8539.50.00, which carries a duty rate of 2% but is not subject to additional Section 232 duties (Super Bright LEDs v. U.S., CIT # 21-00099).

A fraud complaint against Florida businessman Zhe "John" Liu and GL Paper Distribution should not be amended by adding a third defendant, Liu argued in an April 2 response at the Court of International Trade. DOJ's March 15 request to add AB MA Distribution Corporation as a defendant (see 2303140046) "omits critical facts" by failing to disclose a related and ongoing administrative process, Liu said (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).

Boronized steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes and subject to Section 301 tariffs, DOJ argued in its March 31 motion at the Court of International Trade. The government asked the court to deny a motion by importer Maple Leaf Marketing to dismiss the government's counterclaim (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United State, CIT # 20-03839).

A recent appellate court ruling requiring the Commerce Department to pick more than one mandatory respondent in certain antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings doesn’t apply to all cases, the agency said. Commerce said "case-specific circumstances" free it of that obligation.