Domestic manufacturers and producers of a wide range of goods covered by antidumping duty orders filed motions for judgment May 24 seeking court orders that CBP distribute delinquency interest that they say should be paid to affected domestic producers under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.

The Commerce Department erred in its second remand results in an antidumping case when it departed from the "expected method" for calculating an all-other respondent AD duty rate, defendant-intervenors, led by Catfish Farmers of America, said in comments on the remand results dated May 24. The industry trade group argued that Commerce misunderstood CIT's remand directions when it switched to the "other reasonable method" approach under protest. Instead, the court sought only further explanation, it said (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, et al., v. United States, CIT #21-00063).

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.

A group of steel importers, after suffering a defeat in the Court of International Trade, brought their broad challenge to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the statute includes procedural requirements that were ignored in President Donald Trump's expansion of the tariffs. Filing its opening brief on May 24, the importers say that plain use of the mandatory word "shall" throughout Section 232 means the procedural requirements, such as an underlying report from the Commerce Department precipitating tariff action, are required. The steel importers also again argued that the commerce secretary's report is considered final agency action, ready for judicial review (Universal Steel Products, Inc. et al., v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1726).

The Court of International Trade erred in relying on "bypass" liquidations when evaluating the established classification treatment of bicycle seat imports, Kent International argued in a May 21 reply brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When determining whether an established classification treatment exists, CBP can only consider liquidations in which a Customs officer has made a determination, it said. In this case, CBP incorrectly looked at bypass liquidations, which are processed automatically without review by a CBP officer, it said. The bike seat importer said in its appeal that the imported goods should be classified according to CBP's established treatment in subheading 9401, which would allow them to enter duty-free (Kent International, Inc., v. United States, Federal Circuit #21-1065).

Building materials company Bruskin International made its first arguments to the Federal Circuit in a challenge to a change to the scope during an antidumping duty investigation, claiming that the Commerce Department made numerous and significant procedural errors in the scope modification in question, in an opening brief filed May 14.

The Commerce Department failed to follow the Court of International Trade's remand orders in attempting to justify its same adverse facts available determination in an antidumping case, Vietnamese fish exporters argued in their May 21 comments on the agency's remand results. "In its haste to apply total AFA, Commerce has not actually considered and explained all of the relevant record evidence, including that which fairly detracts from its decision," the exporters said. "This was unlawful"(Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Customs Surety Coalition called foul on a CBP attempt to collect unpaid antidumping duties eight years after the relevant entries liquidated, saying the “devastating impact on the surety program is obvious,” in a May 20 amicus brief filed in the Court of International Trade. Stepping in to help defend Aegis Security Insurance Co., the coalition argued that if the court were to accept CBP's position, the statute of limitations on duty payments would be eliminated, allowing the agency to use the law to "absurd ends." CSC was joined by its four coalition members -- the International Trade Surety Association, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, Inc., the Surety & Fidelity Association of American and the Customs Surety Association -- in its brief (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT #20-03628).

The Court of International Trade erred in finding that the Commerce Department improperly applied a particular market situation when addressing purported distortions to costs of production in the 2015-16 antidumping administrative review on welded line pipe from South Korea, U.S. domestic pipe manufacturer Welspun Tubular LLC argued in its May 17 opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Arguing that Commerce's interpretation of the PMS statute is entitled to deference and that the agency's finding of a PMS in South Korea is supported by substantial evidence, Welspun argued that CIT's reading of 2015's Trade Preferences Extension Act in a decision issued by the lower court on Jan. 4 would lead to "absurd results."

Turkish steel exporter Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret said the Commerce Department correctly complied with the Court of International Trade's instructions to drop any adjustment to cost of production based on a particular market situation in the sales-below-cost test in an antidumping duty administrative review. In May 19 comments on Commerce's final remand results, Borusan also said that the agency properly adhered to court instructions by weighing the record evidence applicable to the reduction of Borusan's constructed export price by Section 232 duties paid.