The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 14 upheld the Court of International Trade's decision to reject the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment methodology for an Indian exporter in an antidumping duty investigation on corrosion-resistant steel products. Rather than follow its normal method of adjusting only the export price for drawback received by the exporter, Commerce in the investigation adjusted the exporter's overall costs of production, including for home market goods, resulting in a higher AD duty rate. Like CIT, the Federal Circuit held the broader allocation ran afoul of the relevant statute, which only requires an adjustment to export price.

The Commerce Department failed to substantiate the quantity of fish meal and fish oil byproducts when granting a byproduct offset in a remand of an antidumping case, the defendant intervenor, the Catfish Farmers of America, argued in the Court of International Trade. Opposing remand results in a May 11 filing in CIT, CFA said Commerce's decision to flip its byproduct offset ruling on plaintiff NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Co.'s fish meal and fish oil products was contrary to agency practice and the law. The decision to grant the offset failed to “substantiate” byproduct production and used “unreasonable surrogates to value NTSF's fish meal and oil by-product offsets,” CFA argued. NTSF agreed with the remand results in its own comments.

Since CBP seized a shipment of a cannabis crude extract recovery machine and did not subject it to deemed exclusion from entry, a case challenging the seizure does not have jurisdiction in the Court of International Trade, the Department of Justice said in a May 12 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Importer Root Sciences argues that since it received a notice of seizure after the date of deemed exclusion, its shipment was deemed excluded from entry and thus warranting of jurisdiction in CIT, but citing past court precedent, DOJ said that notice of seizure is not the date of seizure, declaring that "a seizure necessarily occurs prior to the date on which Customs issues the notice of seizure," (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT # 21-00123).

The Department of Justice requested a stay of proceedings in an antidumping case in the Court of International Trade, arguing that there is significant overlap with a case currently before the Federal Circuit on the issue of whether a particular market situation existed in South Korea for the product in question. Filing for the stay in a case brought by SeAH Steel Corporation challenging the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular goods from South Korea, DOJ said that the Federal Circuit's decision will answer one of the central questions in SeAH's lawsuit, and would "likely streamline the issues in the case" (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT # 19-00086). Plaintiffs do not consent to the stay request.

Flooring importer FD Sales Company, LLC launched a challenge in the Court of International Trade claiming that CBP improperly denied some of its imports exclusions from Section 301 tariffs (FD Sales Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00244). In a May 7 complaint, FD Sales said it brought in 49 entries of vinyl flooring, engineered wood flooring, “Aquaguard” wood flooring, tile saws and tile nippers on which it was granted exclusions from the Section 301 tariffs. The importer sought a refund of $671,442.81 in duties paid on the goods, of which $238,025.44 was granted by CBP. FD Sales claims that its imports were properly excluded from the additional duties “pursuant to exclusions to Section 301 granted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.”

Steel exporters Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, along with THL Tube and Pipe Industries and KHK Scaffolding and Framework, say that the Commerce Department incorrectly determined that there was only a single level of trade in the home market, in an antidumping case on circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from the United Arab Emirates. In a May 10 motion for summary judgment in the Court of International Trade, Universal argued that Commerce ignored substantial record evidence to the contrary, leading to an improper antidumping duty margin (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 20-03944).

Mexican steel exporter Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. says that since Section 232 tariffs on Mexican steel and aluminum were made in violation of certain procedural requirements, they should not be deducted from the exporter's U.S. price when determining its antidumping margin. In a May 10 motion for summary judgment in a case at the Court of International Trade, Deacero also argued that since the tariffs are remedial and temporary, they are not ordinary customs duties and are thus excluded from antidumping duty calculations (Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03924).

The Court of International Trade on May 11 sustained on the second remand the Commerce Department’s 2016-17 antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China. The trade court had twice ordered Commerce to reconsider its inclusion of certain data on Thai carbonized material imports from France to value Chinese inputs, noting that Commerce had rejected the data in previous reviews because they were small quantities of wood-based charcoal and had an average unit value much higher than the rest of the Thai data. While Commerce had stood its ground after the first remand, the agency reversed course under protest in its second remand redetermination and excluded the French data.

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 Commerce Department flipped its affirmative antidumping and countervailing duty circumvention rulings on certain hardwood plywood products from China following remand instructions from the Court of International Trade. In its May 10 remand redetermination filing, Commerce reconsidered evidence it initially determined to be untimely submitted and found that certain hardwood plywood products were not developed after Dec. 8, 2016, AD/CVD orders (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00212). The hardwood plywood in question had three qualities: 1) contained face and back veneers of radiata or agathis pine, 2) had a Toxic Substances Control Act or California Air Resources Board label certifying compliance with TSCA/CARB requirements, and 3) was made with a resin, the majority of which is composed of urea-formaldehyde, polyvinyl acetate or soy.