The Commerce Department has the authority to address a particular market situation in an antidumping case when normal value is based on home market sales, AD petitioner Wheatland Tube argued in its Sept. 12 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit should overturn the Court of International Trade's ruling, which found that Commerce acted illegally in relying on constructed value when it found that a PMS distorted the cost of production of the home market sales (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).

CBP must refund the interest accrued on duty overpayments, phone case importer Otter Products argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Having had the duty overpayments themselves refunded following prior court action at CIT and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Otter took to the court again to request the interest. The plaintiff argued that since the full payments were never made voluntarily, it is entitled to a refund of the interest accrued on the payments made in connection with prior disclosures, and that the statute unambiguously mandates the maximum penalty for prior disclosures involving negligent conduct (Otter Products v. United States, CIT #22-00033).

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 13 opinion found the Commerce Department reasonably used adverse facts available in a countervailing duty case related to the Chinese government's failure to submit certain information about the Export Buyer's Credit Program. Marking a clear departure from the trade court's numerous past rulings on the subject, Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce reasonably explained why it needed the information from the Chinese government to verify that the respondents and their U.S. customers did not use the EBCP. The judge further sided with the U.S. over its positions that acrylic polymer can be used as a stand-alone primer and that the agency can average all freight routes to establish a world market benchmark for ocean freight.

Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case, Tau-Ken Temir, JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk and Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration, will appeal a July Court of International Trade ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 11 notice of appeal. In the case, the trade court ruled the Commerce Department properly rejected Tau-Ken Temir's questionnaire responses for being untimely, as they were filed an hour and 41 minutes beyond the deadline (see 2207150035). The court said it is unclear why the plaintiffs failed to file an extension request earlier in the process rather than an hour and 10 minutes before the deadline (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., CIT #21-00173).

CBP unlawfully began an Enforce and Protect Act investigation into CEK Group since the allegation submitted by M&B Metal Products didn't support the start of the investigation, CEK Group argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. To start an EAPA action, there must be an allegation with specific information -- something CBP did not receive from M&B, the brief said. The plaintiff said the Royal Brush v. U.S. case at the trade court "has now constrained CBP" in EAPA cases from making decisions based on confidential information not made available to the parties via public summaries -- something CBP allegedly did in CEK Group's case (CEK Group v. U.S., CIT #22-00082).

CBP unlawfully changed exporter J.D. Irving's antidumping duty cash deposit rate on its 2020 entries months after the rate had been confirmed when no administrative review had been requested of the exporter, J.D. Irving argued in a Sept. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Because the change came after assessment instructions had been issued for the 2020 review period, it improperly set a cash deposit that was not based on same dumping margin as its most recent assessment rate, the exporter said (J.D. Irving v. U.S., CIT #22-00256).

The Court of International Trade should reject a motion from defendant Zhe "John" Liu to strike various paragraphs of the U.S.'s complaint in a Section 592 penalty case, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 8 reply brief. DOJ argued that Liu cannot show that his knowledge and experience -- the content of the paragraphs contested by Liu -- are not material to the issues in the case and thus should not be struck (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT #22-00215).

The Commerce Department disregarded the potential for countervailing duty respondent CS Wind Vietnam to manipulate its CVD margin through its relationship with its Korean parent company, plaintiff Wind Tower Trade Coalition (WTTC) said in Sept. 7 comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting its arguments to the Court of International Trade, WTTC said Commerce's use of CS Wind Korea's reported sales value in the sales denominator was inconsistent with the agency's regulations and past practice (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT #20-03692).

The Court of International Trade denied a motion by Midwest-CBK that asked the court to have two issues appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a Sept. 7 order from Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. The order said that the issues at hand did not meet the requirements for an interlocutory appeal because they involved questions of fact, not purely law (Midwest-CBK, LLC v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00154).

The Commerce Department in a pair of remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade stuck by its position to exclude importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. After the trade court remanded the case for a second time, finding that the previous remand results were not submitted in a form the trade court could sustain, Commerce offered a further explanation for its decision to find that the thresholds fit under the finished merchandise exclusion to the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).