The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 13 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request in an antidumping duty case. Commerce wanted the remand period to review the non-selected respondents' rate in an AD review since the rate was based on the prior administrative review's rate, which was changed after separate litigation at the trade court (Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00006).

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 in a Jan. 16 paperless order denied a U.S. motion to exclude live testimony from plaintiff Oman Fasteners' CEO, Seve Karaga, in an antidumping duty case. The court said that Oman Fasteners can call Karaga to testify at the Jan. 23 hearing over the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, though the testimony "shall be confined to the facts set forth in his declaration attached to Plaintiffs motion" (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).

The Court of International Trade should have allowed a company that filed an attorney conflict-of-interest suit involving an International Trade Commission AD/CVD injury proceeding to amend its allegations to comply with the court's opinion, rather than dismissing the case outright with leave to file under a different jurisdictional provision, said the company, Amstead Rail Co., in an opening brief filed Jan. 13 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Amsted Rail Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 18 opinion sent back the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping review on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Mexico. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said comments from petitioner Nucor Tubular Products on ministerial errors present in the rate calculations for respondents Maquilacero and Prolamsa were improperly denied as untimely. The comments qualify for an exception to the rule that the notes be timely filed because the errors arose after the review's final results, the judge said.

The International Trade Commission used an incorrect interpretation of the word "likely" when finding that revoking the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia would likely lead to the recurrence of material injury to the domestic U.S. industry within a reasonably foreseeable time, Australian exporter BlueScope Steel argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade Jan. 13, BlueScope also said the ITC erred by cumulating Australian imports with other countries' imports in the injury review (BlueScope Steel v. United States, CIT # 22-00353).

The Court of International Trade should not dismiss a case based on the underlying entries' liquidation because the entries were liquidated erroneously, importer Fraserview argued in a Jan. 12 brief (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. United States, CIT # 22-00244).

The Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available for antidumping duty respondent Sino-Maple, but the agency did not properly derive the AFA rate, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 22 opinion made public Jan. 13. Judge Richard Eaton said that Commerce properly used AFA due to Sino-Maple's failure to provide constructed export price information on a per transaction basis for U.S. sales made to its U.S. affiliate by third-country manufacturers. The judge, however, sent back the AFA rate itself, finding that the agency cannot use the highest transaction-specific margin for the other respondent when setting the AFA rate. Eaton also upheld Commerce's decisions to reject separate rate applications from Scholar Home and Baishan Huafeng.

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Countervailing duty respondent Zhejiang Zhouli Industrial moved on Jan. 11 to dismiss its case at the Court of International Trade over late-submitted questionnaire responses in a countervailing duty investigation (Zhejiang Zhouli Industrial v. United States, CIT # 22-00177).