The Commerce Department's simple average of the de minimis and the adverse facts available China-wide rates to derive the all-others rate in an antidumping case did not reasonably reflect the potential dumping margin of the separate rate respondents, PrimeSource Building Products argued in an Oct. 18 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The AFA negates the presumption that mandatory respondents' rates reflect the separate rate respondents, and prior reviews show that cooperating separate respondents' rates are lower than firms subject to AFA, the brief argued (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. #20-03911).

The Commerce Department properly applied adverse facts available when weighing antidumping respondent Bosun Tool's country of origin information using a first-in, first-out (FIFO) methodology, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 27 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly found that although Bosun cooperated to the best of its ability with the AD review, the use of AFA was warranted because an exporter is reasonably expected to keep documents that properly document country of origin -- something that the FIFO methodology does not do.

The Commerce Department filed Oct. 25 for a voluntary remand of a Section 232 exclusion case with the consent of the counsel for the plaintiff, importer CPW America Co., at the Court of International Trade. Finding that the remand would expedite the case's resolution, Commerce said that because the case involves only one exclusion request, the agency would be able to reconsider the exclusion within the standard 90-day remand period (CPW America Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00335).

CBP misclassified imports of certain inflatable swimming pool floats and lounges, importer Swimways Corporation said in an Oct. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Arguing against CBP's classification, Swimways leaned on a case it won at CIT in 2018 favoring its preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for the pool floats (Swimways Corporation v. United States, CIT #13-00397).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 25 reversed the dismissals of multiple tariff classification lawsuits over LED lamps after counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the events that resulted in the dismissals constituted "excusable neglect." Judge Leo Gordon ordered that the 10 dismissed cases be restored to the Customs Case Management Calendar (Target General Merchandise, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00283).

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 Court of International Trade sustained on Oct. 27 the Commerce Department's second remand results in a case over the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's use of adverse facts available when weighing respondent Bosun Tool's country of origin information using a first-in, first-out methodology, despite Bosun's full cooperation. Kelly also rejected Bosun's argument that if AFA were to be applied, the scope of its application should be limited to the missing country of origin information for the FIFO sales, holding instead that Commerce reasonably found that, without reliable country of origin information, the agency could not accurately pair price data in the U.S. sales database with the correct country of origin.

A host of Indian stainless steel flange exporters challenged the Commerce Department's final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on the subject flanges, in an Oct. 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade. In the complaint's two counts, the exporters are contesting Commerce's determination of the "all other" rate since it was derived using an adverse facts available rate for one of the respondents, and the agency's failure to calculate a dumping margin for respondent Chandan based on its own information instead of relying on AFA (Echjay Forgings Private Limited, et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00542).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its mandate Oct. 22 for its decision backing the Commerce Department's rejection of data corrections submitted by an antidumping respondent. In August, the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade's decision, holding that the corrections were not "minor," meaning that Commerce was justified when it originally rejected the revisions and levied an adverse facts available AD duty rate on Goodluck India (see 2108310040). The case involved cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #18-00162).

Importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc.'s telecommunications cables qualify for Section 301 China tariff exclusions and the duties it paid on the cables should be refunded, the importer argued in an Oct. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's denial of its protest, which sought to apply a particular exclusion (Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00200).