The Commerce Department dropped its reliance on facts available in an antidumping duty investigation after conducting remand proceedings at the Court of International Trade, finding a questionnaire it issued in lieu of a site visit during the coronavirus pandemic "satisfies the verification requirement" laid out in the statute, in remand results filed Jan. 12 at the Court of International Trade (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00007).

The Commerce Department properly found that importer Vandewater International Inc.'s steel branch outlets are covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 11 brief. Commerce's scope ruling is backed by a reading of each "(k)(2)" factor, including the physical characteristics of the steel branch outlets, the ultimate purchasers' expectations, the ultimate use of the product, and channels of trade in which the product is sold (Vandewater International Inc. v. U.S., CIT #18-00199).

The Court of International Trade should compel CBP to respond to Wheatland Tube's request for information and request for a tariff classification ruling over certain electrical conduits from Mexico, Wheatland Tube told the Court of International in a Jan. 12 complaint. Seeking a writ of mandamus in a motion filed concurrently with the complaint, Wheatland alleges that certain importers, namely Shamrock Building Materials, are mis-labelling their imports to qualify for an exception to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties (Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, CIT #22-00004).

Two “pertinent and significant” decisions at the Court of International Trade support the arguments of Section 301 test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its Trade Act of 1974 modification authority by imposing the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and that it violated protections in the Administrative Procedure Act against sloppy rulemakings, Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco said in a notice of supplemental authorities relevant to the Section 301 litigation. Both decisions were handed down after Akin Gump filed its final written brief in the Section 301 case on Nov. 15 (see 2111160010).

The Commerce Department incorrectly found Kumar Industries was affiliated with one of its home market buyers and one of its input suppliers in an antidumping duty review, and shouldn't have applied adverse facts available based on the lack of information provided by Kumar because the information wasn't requested, Kumar told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 10 complaint (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT #21-00622).

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 U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shouldn't strike down President Donald Trump's extension of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs onto "derivative" products made beyond procedural deadlines since the tariffs had a positive impact on the U.S. industry, The American Steel Nail Coalition said in Jan. 10 proposed amicus brief. The coalition asked the court for leave to file the amicus brief in a bid to broaden the defense of the president's tariff action. The proposed amicus further said that this issue has already been decided following the Federal Circuit's decision in the key case Transpacific Steel v. U.S. (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2066).

The Commerce Department can calculate the separate rate respondent's dumping margin by averaging an adverse facts available rate and a de minimis rate in an antidumping duty review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Jan. 10. Upholding the Court of International Trade's decision, the Federal Circuit said the separate rates in the past AD reviews trended upward, justifying the 41.025% dumping rate for the separate rate respondents.

CBP initiated two antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigations on cast iron soil pipe fittings (CISPF) from China under suspicion that imports from certain companies were evading the orders by way of transshipment through Cambodia. The Cambodian-registered company Little Fireflies International was implicated in both of the investigations as the importer of record in each case but also as the source of the covered merchandise for another importer named in one of the investigations, Granite Plumbing. CBP imposed interim measures in both investigations after finding a reasonable suspicion that Little Fireflies and Granite Plumbing entered merchandise covered by the ADD/CVD orders through evasion.

A clear reading of the law allows for an importer to bring in goods deemed "drug paraphernalia" federally if they are legal at the state level, Washington-based importer Keirton USA told the Court of International Trade in its Jan. 5 motion for judgment. Seeking to get back its imports of cannabis processors from CBP, Keirton told the trade court that the exemption allowing for the import of drug paraphernalia where it is legal at the state level is "plain and unambiguous and must be applied accordingly" (Keirton USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT #21-00452).