A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told the Court of International Trade that it has now twice wrongly told an importer that its first-sale price method to determine the duty level of its cookware was prohibited.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 16 remanded the Commerce Department’s classification of xanthan gum exporter Fufeng’s coal and its direct calculation of the exporter’s energy costs. Judge Gary Katzmann dismissed the exporter’s challenge to the Cohen’s d test and to the department’s decision to subtract Section 301 tariffs from the Fufeng’s value calculation (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).

The Commerce Department erred in finding that respondent Habich and its U.S. sales agent aren't affiliated, as well as in its calculations of Habich's normal value based on its third-country sales to Mexico, petitioner Lumimove, doing business as WPC Technologies, argued. Filing a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 5, WPC said Commerce's failure to further investigate the alleged affiliation between Habich and its U.S. sales agent amounted to a "dereliction of duty" (Lumimove, Inc., d/b/a WPC Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00105).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 12 remanded the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea in a confidential decision. Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Dec. 16 to review the confidential information in the decision. The central issue in the case is the Commerce Department's finding of de facto specificity regarding the South Korean government's alleged provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (see 2408130046). Parties in the case also contest Commerce's refusal to accept the 2021 cost information from the state electricity company, KEPCO, as being untimely filed (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00211).

The Commerce Department has the inherent authority to set procedural requirements in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings, making its revocation of certain AD orders lawful given that no interested domestic party filed a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews on the orders, the agency said. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 11, Commerce said the Court of International Trade's rejection of its action usurped the department's clear authority to fix its own procedures (Archroma U.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded to the Court of International Trade for the second time a case on Meyer Corp.'s use of first sale. The ruling, issued Dec. 13, orders the CIT to once again consider whether CBP was wrong to reject the first-sale price submitted to the agency by Meyer, based on the price paid by distributors in Macau to a Thai manufacturer and by distributors in Hong Kong to a Chinese manufacturer. The manufacturers, distributors and importers share the same parent company -- Meyer International Holdings, Ltd.

The United Steelworkers labor union again (see 2409050044) said Dec. 10 that an exporter’s temporary-use spare tires should have been covered by an antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, in a motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00165).

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 U.S. defended its motion to dismiss importer Retractable Technologies' suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 duty hike on needles and syringes, claiming that the Court of International Trade either doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Retractable's claims or that the company failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

The Commerce Department adequately explained its finding that it had sufficient industry support to launch the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 10. After previously remanding the issue, Judge Claire Kelly held that the agency sufficiently addressed evidence contrary to its conclusion.