The Commerce Department properly found that Australian steel maker BlueScope Steel did not reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said that claims from AD petitioner U.S. Steel "are based entirely on a misreading of the supply agreement," since the agreement actually sets the price the importer will charge Steelscape, the affiliated final customer, and is silent as to the transfer price between the exporter and importer (U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).

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.

Importer Royal Brush Manufacturing has failed to rebut the U.S.'s showing that an appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act case should be dismissed since the entries have all been liquidated, the government argued in a Jan. 30 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Royal Brush failed to address the U.S. reliance on Federal Circuit precedent showing that "an unprotested liquidation divests the trial court of jurisdiction, even if the liquidation was erroneous," the brief said (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential Jan. 24 opinion made public Feb. 1 upheld CBP's decision to find that importer Leco Supply evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on wire hangers from Vietnam. Leco argued that CBP illegally started the investigation; CBP's decision was not backed by substantial evidence; CBP denied Leco procedural due process; and CBP abused its discretion by refusing to accept Leco's written arguments during the remand proceeding. Judge Mark Barnett sided with the government on all four points.

The Court of International Trade should deny Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Endura Products' request to stay proceedings in an EAPA case, pending resolution of a scope proceeding at the trade court, plaintiff Columbia Aluminum Products argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief. Since CIT found that Columbia's assembled door thresholds are finished merchandise and thus not subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2212190051), the present EAPA case "cannot survive," the brief said. This outcome "should result in the granting of Columbia Aluminum’s Rule 56.2 motion and a denial of the motion Endura filed" (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT # 19-00185).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 30 order gave importer Wanxiang America an additional 2,000 words for its upcoming reply brief as it seeks to dismiss a $100 million customs penalty case. Wanxiang America had asked for an extra 3,000 words, arguing that the extra words will give the court "a more complete understanding of Defendant's argument as to (a) why the Government cannot, as a matter of law, establish any Section 1592 violation and (b) the Government’s case against the Defendant amounts to significant Government overreach by Customs" (see 2301270079) (United States v. Wanxiang America, CIT # 22-00205).

Importer Southern Cross Seafood failed to rebut the government's showing that the National Marine Fisheries Service's denial of the company's preapproval application seeking to import Chilean sea bass does not amount to an embargo, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 27 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Even if this denial were an embargo, Southern Cross has further failed to show that jurisdiction does not exclusively lie in the relevant district court and not at the trade court, the U.S. said (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT #22-00299).

Protests seeking refunds for granted exclusions from Section 232 tariffs must be filed in a timely manner, even when the process is complicated by government errors, the DOJ argued in a Jan. 27 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (SXP Schulz Xtruded Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00136).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 27 order let the Commerce Department add a questionnaire deficiencies analysis to the record in an antidumping duty case. The order said the memorandum is appropriately part of the record because the agency used it in coming up with the review's final results. Judge Stephen Vaden held that omitting the analysis would "frustrate judicial review," and that, despite respondent Grupo Simec's claims, Commerce did not act in bad faith by leaving the review off the record.

Importer Wanxiang America asked the Court of International Trade for an extra 3,000 words for its reply to the U.S.'s opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss a $100 million customs penalty case. In a Jan. 27 motion seeking a total of 10,000 words for its reply brief, Wanxiang America said that the extra words will give the court "a more complete understanding of Defendant's argument as to (a) why the Government cannot, as a matter of law, establish any Section 1592 violation and (b) the Government’s case against the Defendant amounts to significant Government overreach by Customs." The U.S. opposes the motion (U.S. v. Wanxiang America Corporation, CIT # 22-00205).