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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 20 backed the Commerce Department's initial decision to adjust a Turkish pipe exporter's post-sale price by only one-third of a late delivery penalty, saying it was supported by substantial evidence. Reversing a ruling from the Court of International Trade, the appellate court held that CIT erred in backing Commerce into adjusting the post-sale price by the entirety of the penalty cost since the customer was not aware of the methodology by which the amount of the penalty was to be determined. The decision brought the antidumping margin for mandatory respondent Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Vicaret's above de minimis to 5.11%.

All customs entries from China with Section 301 lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure not yet liquidated as of the U.S. Court of International Trade's July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order freezing liquidations would liquidate "in the ordinary course" and be refunded to the plaintiff importers at the end of the litigation if they win, Akin Gump lawyers proposed July 20 for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products. Akin Gump seized on the proposal after DOJ lawyers at a status conference July 15 opened the door a crack to the possibility they would support a refund stipulation after months of refusing to do so.

The Court of International Trade again rejected the Commerce Department's attempt to make a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production in a sales-below-cost test in an antidumping case, according to a July 19 opinion. Yet again, the court said that such adjustments, resulting in alternative cost methodologies, are reserved for constructed value and not normal value because sales used when calculating normal value must be carried out in the "ordinary course of trade."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's July 13 decision in favor of President Donald Trump's Section 232 tariff increase for Turkish steel past the 105-day deadline set by statute may be a serious setback for Turkish steel exporters (see 2107130059), but what it means for the remaining litigation challenging the president's authority under Section 232, Section 301 or any other statute granting the executive tariff powers is less clear, lawyers said in the days following the decision.

CBP announced the launch of an Enforce and Protect Act investigation and the imposition of “interim measures” on BGI Group for alleged evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets and vanities by way of transshipment through Vietnam, the agency said in a recent notice. CBP will suspend liquidation and require cash deposits as of March 26, 2021, for entries from Vietnam from the BGI Group, which does business as U.S. Cabinet Depot.

Opposing sides in the Section 301 litigation appeared from the July 15 status conference at the U.S. Court of International Trade to be inching toward a compromise that would spare CBP the administrative burden of complying with the court's July 6 preliminary injunction (PI) order freezing liquidation of many thousands of unliquidated customs entries with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. The court called the conference to gauge progress in creating the order's "repository" for importers to seek the suspension of entries due to be liquidated during a 28-day temporary restraining order period that expires Aug. 2.

The Commerce Department will only partially apply adverse facts available for sales a diamond sawblade exporter made to its U.S. affiliate, which used a first-in-first-out methodology to keep track of its country of origin data when calculating the exporter's antidumping rate, it said in remand results filed by the agency July 13. The filing comes to the Court of International Trade after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit left it up to the trade court to determine if a further remand was needed. The Federal Circuit held that a remand was appropriate for Commerce to determine if it could disregard the exporter's U.S. sales using the FIFO methodology (Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers' Coalition v. United States, CIT #17-00167).

The president may impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day timeframe for action set out in the statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a July 13 ruling. Overturning a lower court ruling, the Federal Circuit found that the underlying law's deadline for the president to take "action" can refer to a "plan of action" carried out over a period of time following the 105-day deadline. That authority is not unlimited, though, in that modifications must be related to the underlying reasoning for the tariffs and those reasons can't be "stale," CAFC said.

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.