The Court of International Trade on Feb. 16 denied an importer and its owner's motion for reconsideration in a penalty case where they stand accused of customs fraud, as well as their bid to appeal a single issue in the case related to the date the alleged fraud was discovered (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).

Antidumping and countervailing duty petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee will appeal two December Court of International Trade opinions upholding Commerce Department scope rulings. In the case, Commerce on remand found importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds were not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, finding they qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion (see 2212190051). Per a pair of Feb. 14 notices of appeal, the committee will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 14 order granted the Commerce Department's bid for a voluntary remand to address its selection of only one respondent in a countervailing duty case. Judge Timothy Reif gave the agency 45 days to file its remand results (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol #20-03885).

The Commerce Department correctly assigned an adverse facts available rate to a Vietnamese exporter for its failure to respond to a supplemental questionnaire, even though it had previously found the company was not under government control and granted it a separate rate, the Catfish Farmers of America, a defendant-intervenor, argued in its Feb. 10 response brief at the Court of International Trade (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00092).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to apply a 10.54% adverse facts available countervailing duty rate to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program for respondent Yama Ribbons. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade Feb. 15, Commerce said the CVD rate "does not unreasonably penalize Yama as a cooperative respondent" and using AFA was warranted given the Chinese government's failure to cooperate in the case (Yama Ribbons and Bows v. United States, CIT # 20-00059).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 13 text-only notice alerted appellee CP Kelco it has failed to file a response brief in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The court said failure to file such a brief could lead to "dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The Commerce Department is apparently expanding a covered merchandise inquiry in an Enforce and Protect Act case into what is in effect an anti-circumvention inquiry, but can't use any prospective finding of circumvention to find an importer previously evaded duties in violation of the Enforce and Protect Act, plaintiffs Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group (IPPG) argued in a Feb. 14 brief asking the Court of International Trade to reconsider its prior stay in the case (Norca Industrial Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00192).

The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a countervailing duty case at the Court of International Trade in light of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that the agency cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping or countervailing duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review. Filing an unopposed motion for remand Feb. 14, Commerce said the decision, YC Rubber v. U.S., "may implicate Commerce's respondent selection determinations at issue in this litigation" (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

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 correctly held that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 does not require CBP to distribute interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. argued in a pair of reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Hilex Poly Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. U.S, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).