Protests are not a prerequisite for Section 301 refunds on goods retroactively excluded from the duties on them and the government overstepped its authority in imposing such a requirement, Environment One argued in an Aug. 18 brief at the Court of International Trade (Environment One Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 22-00124).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop its particular market situation adjustment for a key input of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea in an antidumping duty review. Commerce had previously dropped the PMS adjustment for one of review's mandatory respondents but not the other. In the case's fourth remand results, the agency dropped the adjustment for the other, lowering non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77%. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the move to drop the adjustment for the other respondent.

The Commerce Department stuck by its positions in an antidumping duty review, in Aug. 23 remand results. The agency further explained its selection of India as the primary surrogate country and its analysis of respondent NTSF Seafoods' reporting of the company's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of the fillets (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT #20-00105).

The Court of International Trade should consolidate two cases -- one of which is already a consolidated action brought by two importers -- because they both are challenging the same Enforce and Protect Act determination, the U.S. argued in an Aug. 19 brief. The cases -- one led by Far East American, the other led by InterGlobal Forest -- argue that CBP wasn't authorized to initiate the EAPA investigation and that CBP violated the plaintiffs' due process rights, and should be consolidated to preserve judicial efficiency, the U.S. said (Far East American v. U.S., CIT #22-00213) (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT #22-00214).

The Court of International Trade should send back the Commerce Department's constructed value (CV) profit rate for antidumping respondent Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) if the court does not uphold the de minimis rate calculated by Commerce on remand, BSM argued in Aug. 19 comments. Arguing that the remand results should be sustained, BSM, replying to the AD petitioner, continued to critique the CV profit rate in case the de minimis rate is not upheld (Building Systems de Mexico v. United States, CIT #20-00069).

Importer Mirror Metals and the Commerce Department need more time to work out the details of refunding Section 232 duties following Commerce's decision to grant retroactive tariff exclusion bids, according to an Aug. 22 status report filed with the Court of International Trade (Mirror Metals v. U.S., CIT #21-00144).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The Commerce Department unlawfully used an alternate method for calculating normal value in an antidumping duty review on goods from China, respondent Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products argued in an Aug. 22 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The exporter argued Commerce illegally based normal value on the price at which the subject merchandise, square tubes, is sold in other countries, rather than base normal value on the quantity of raw materials used to make the square tubes (Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00116).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results in a case on the 2015-16 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the remand results, Commerce dropped its finding that a particular market situation distorted the price of a key input of the steel pipe. Previously in the case, the agency dropped the PMS adjustment to one of the AD review respondents but not the other. The elimination of the adjustment for the other in the fourth remand results resulted in a decrease in non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77%.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 19 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case brought by Prime Time Commerce. In June, the appellate court ruled that Prime Time failed to exhaust its administrative remedies for its argument that the Commerce Department should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide antidumping margin (see 2206280038). The Federal Circuit further ruled that while CIT and Commerce erred in not accepting Prime Time's submissions since it is an "interested party," the error was a harmless one. The case concerned the administrative review of the AD order on cased pencils from China (Prime Time Commerce v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1783).