The Commerce Department should not have considered "(k)(1)" materials over the plain meaning of the scope of an antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China in finding that certain flanges fall outside of the ADD order, defendant-intervenor ASC Engineered Solutions said in Jan. 20 comments at the Court of International Trade. Since Commerce found that Crane Resistoflex's flanges "clearly fall within the plain language of the scope," that should have been the end of the case. Instead, Commerce considered the (k)(1) materials and illegally excluded Crane's flanges, the brief said (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).

The COVID-19 pandemic did not give the Commerce Department cover to ignore its statutory obligation to conduct on-site verification in antidumping duty proceedings, the plaintiffs in an ADD case told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 19 brief. Responding to the Department of Justice's defense of its decision to send an additional questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification, the plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Company, said that DOJ's position is not entitled to Chevron deference and that the pandemic did not justify violating the statute (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 order denied California Steel Industries' and Welspun Tubular's bid for a stay in a case over the Commerce Department's final results in the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. CSI and Welspun wanted a stay while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit mulls whether Commerce can make a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in the sales-below-cost test. CIT said CAFC already ruled against the practice, so the trade court can't be certain that granting the stay would "serve any purpose other than" to just delay resolution of the case.

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 Court of International Trade improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied Meyer Corp. "first sale" valuation on its imports of cookware, Meyer told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 10 reply brief. The dual burden of proof practice was previously eliminated, so CIT improperly applied this standard when it denied Meyer first sale but sustained CBP's valuation of the imports based on their second sale rate, Meyer said (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932). "Despite its prodigious length (120 pages), the CIT's opinion consists mainly of a recitation of the parties' proposed post-trial findings and contains very little by way of legal analysis," the company said.

An importer needs to file a protest to claim jurisdiction at the Court of International Trade over protestable CBP decisions, and that includes CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold CIT's decision dismissing a lawsuit from ARP Materials and Harrison Steel seeking refunds of the duties, arguing CIT's "residual" jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) does not apply, since the plaintiff-appellants had adequate notice of CBP's actions and actually received Section 301 refunds for some of their entries (see 2109280061) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

Steel trailer wheel exporter Zhejiang Jingu Co. will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit two court decisions on the Commerce Department's scope revision in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on steel trailer wheels from China, according to the pair of notices of appeal. In November 2021, the Court of International Trade upheld Commerce's inclusion of steel trailer wheels coated in chrome through a physical vapor deposition process under the ADD/CVD orders on steel trailer wheels while also dropping the retroactive imposition of the duties on subject merchandise (see 2111180043). One case concerns the antidumping duty order and the other is on the countervailing duty order (Trans Texas Tire v. U.S., CIT #19-00188, -00189).

The Commerce Department reasonably hit countervailing duty respondent Uttam Galva Steels Limited with adverse facts available over its failure to reveal its affiliation with a cross-owned producer of the subject merchandise, Lloyds Steel Industries Limited, the Department of Justice told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 14 reply brief. Since Uttam Galva only admitted to affiliation with LSIL after prodding from Commerce, the respondent failed to have cooperated to the best of its ability, justifying the use of AFA, DOJ said (Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2119).

The Department of Justice backed the Commerce Department's decision to hit antidumping duty review respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group with the China-wide dumping rate despite its full cooperation in the review, in a Jan. 14 brief at the Court of International Trade. DOJ said that after looking at Jinqiao Flooring's ownership makeup, the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of government control and that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld Commerce's bid to use an adverse facts available rate for a separate rate respondent despite its full cooperation (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S. , CIT #18-00191).

The Department of Justice will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a November 2021 Court of International Trade decision striking down the Trump administration's withdrawal of a tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, according to a Jan. 14 notice of appeal. In the opinion, the trade court struck down the exclusion rescission since the law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).