Importer DSM Nutritional Products moved on April 27 to designate a test case in its tariff classification challenge on beta-carotene products, in a bid to place six other cases under one other action at the Court of International Trade. Five of the other cases were brought by DSM (see 2110270052) and one other by American International Chemical (DSM Nutritional Products v. United States, CIT #17-00136).

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade found that antidumping duty review respondent Shandong New Continent Tire accurately reported its U.S. sales prices and affiliated parties. After voluntarily requesting the remand, Commerce said it was able to verify New Continent's U.S. prices and affiliations in the highly redacted remand results (Pirelli Tyre v. U.S., CIT #20-00115).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case, establishing a de minimis dumping margin for exporter Power Steel Co. As no party submitted any further filings over the remand results, Judge Jane Restani affirmed the remand in a one-page judgment. On remand, Commerce found that Power Steel didn't pay Section 232 duties on two entries of steel concrete rebar, dropping the duties from the company's sales prices when establishing its base export price.

The Court of International Trade granted steel company NLMK Pennsylvania's request to file a second amended complaint in its challenge to the Commerce Department's denials of the company's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. The amended complaint tacks on two additional entries that were denied the Section 232 exclusions since they cover the same products. The motion went unopposed from the U.S. (NLMK Pennsylvania LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

The U.S. moved for a stay of proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act contest at the Court of International Trade after CBP found that a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department was needed after a voluntary remand request to reconsider its affirmative evasion finding (Fedmet Resources Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00248).

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., supports a group of mattress exporters' Court of International Trade case contesting an antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam, the exporters said in an April 25 notice of supplemental authority. In Mid Continent, the Federal Circuit remanded the Commerce Department's decision to use a simple average to calculate the pooled standard deviation when using the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis to target "masked dumping" (see 2204210031). The mattress exporters, led by Ashley Furniture Industries, seek to piggyback on this decision, arguing that it confirms their position that "the use of simple-average standard deviation rather than weighted-average or population standard deviation represents an unreasonable departure from the original intent of the developers of the Cohen’s d formula" (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT #21-00283).

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif denied a motion by importer Cozy Comfort for a conference to consider court-annexed mediation. In an April 26 opposition motion, the government argued that mediation would be inappropriate because there are still facts at issue and that mediation will likely be ineffective as long as the government is opposed. Reif agreed but said Cozy Comfort may renew its motion after discovery has been completed.

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 Commerce Department continued to deny two groups of plaintiffs in an antidumping case -- led by Guizhou Tyre Co. and Double Coin Holdings -- separate rate status, finding on remand ordered by the Court of International Trade that the companies still failed to rebut the presumption of Chinese government control. Commerce said that Guizhou Tyre and Double Coin are not free from government control regarding how they pick their management and thus are under government control for the purposes of the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00031).

A good faith disagreement over the scope of antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders cannot be construed as a "material and false statement," needed to find evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act, importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. argued in an April 26 brief at the Court of International Trade. As such, CBP's evasion finding is illegal, as it fails to make a proper finding of evasion, the brief said (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT #21-00592).