The Court of International Trade in a June 2 opinion remanded an antidumping administrative review on multilayered wood flooring from China to the Commerce Department after a related ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the mandatory respondents to not be subject to the AD order. In the remand, Commerce is to determine a new rate for the separate rate respondents now that the existing 0.79% dumping margin for the mandatory respondents' rate no longer applies.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 2 upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that S.C. Johnson's Ziploc brand reclosable sandwich bags are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3923 as articles for the conveyance or packing of other goods, dutiable at 3%, as opposed to heading 3924 as plastic household goods, which would be eligible for duty-free Generalized System of Preferences benefits program treatment. Since the bags could fall under either heading 3923 or 3924, heading 3923 is the correct home for the bags since its terms are "more difficult to satisfy and describe the article with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty," the Federal Circuit said.

Steel exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. agreed to the Commerce Department's remand results dropping the cost-based particular market situation adjustment in the sales-below-cost test for imports of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, according to May 28 comments filed in the Court of International Trade. The Department of Justice also signed off on the remand results, finding that although Commerce filed the results under respectful protest, continuing to find a PMS in Thailand, the agency complied with court orders by scrapping the PMS adjustment (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #19-00208).

COVID-19 manufacturing complications distorted both the timing and the volume of imports over the post-petition period in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into small vertical shaft engines from China, and the International Trade Commission should not have made findings of critical circumstances that led to imposition of retroactive AD/CV duties in the eventual AD/CVD orders, U.S. importer MTD Products Inc. alleged in a May 28 complaint filed in the Court of International Trade. Foreign manufacturers could not produce the subject merchandise for a "significant portion of the pre-petition period due to COVID-19-related plant closures," MTD said. "Further, COVID-19-related closures in the United States, in addition to commercial uncertainties regarding Petitioner’s long-term viability and inability to meet a spike in domestic demand artificially inflated import volumes over this period," the complaint said. "These extraordinary circumstances significantly distorted both the timing and volume of imports over the post-petition period, the first two factors the Commission must consider when making a finding of critical circumstances." (MTD Products Inc v. United States, CIT #21-00264).

Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi accused the Commerce Department of a "severe abuse of discretion" by rejecting entire questionnaire responses because certain parts were filed 21 minutes and 87 minutes late in an antidumping and a countervailing duty investigation, respectively. Celik Halat says Commerce should not have applied adverse facts available to its exports of prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Turkey due to the late filings in two May 28 motions for judgment. (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00045, #21-00050).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 2 upheld a Court of International Trade ruling that S.C. Johnson's Ziploc brand reclosable sandwich bags are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3923 as articles for the conveyance or packing of other goods, dutiable at 3%, and not in heading 3924 as plastic household goods, which are eligible for duty-free GSP treatment. Since the bags could fall under either heading 3923 or 3924, heading 3923 is the correct home for the bags since its terms are "more difficult to satisfy and describe the article with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty," the Federal Circuit said in upholding CIT's decision.

South Korean wind tower maker CS Wind didn't receive any special benefit from the Import Duty Exemptions on Raw Materials for Exported Goods program and actually overreported information on its raw material inputs, making the application of adverse facts available improper, the Department of Justice argued. In a May 26 reply brief, DOJ responded to a challenge from the Wind Tower Trade Coalition claiming that the Commerce Department erred in not applying AFA to CS Wind in a countervailing duty investigation of utility-scale wind towers from Vietnam. WTTC argued that certain inputs of steel plate, a raw material in the wind towers, could have actually been imported instead of made in Vietnam (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT #20-03692).

The Department of Justice is debating with Chinese cabinet exporter Delian Meisen Woodworking Co. over whether the Commerce Department can construe false advertising materials as grounds to apply adverse facts available in antidumping proceedings. In an April 5 revised response revised again on May 26, DOJ argued that Meisen's inability to explain a discrepancy between its U.S. sales price and factors of production information resulting from false advertising lawfully led to Commerce applying AFA. Meisen in its corrected reply is fighting to establish that Commerce's antidumping investigations must be limited to the actual factors of production used to make the subject merchandise, lest AD proceedings be used to “take responsibility for enforcing a wide variety of U.S. laws and unfair business practices under the antidumping laws” (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-00109).

Tool retailer Stanley Black & Decker filed a lawsuit in the Court of International Trade, hoping to piggyback on a recent decision striking down the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivatives," according to a May 27 complaint. The decision, PrimeSource Buildnig Products, Inc. v. United States, et al., CIT #20-00032, found that President Donald Trump violated procedural time limits when expanding the Section 232 tariffs onto derivative products (see 2104050049). A three-judge panel at the court made the decision, ultimately finding that only PrimeSource would be granted refunds for payments made toward the 25% steel derivatives tariffs. While the decision stopped imposing the tariffs for imports and unliquidated goods, it found that it would only grant refunds on a per-case basis. The company is seeking a refund with interest for any payments made toward the duties.