The Court of International Trade on May 2 sustained the Commerce Department's rejection of exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's allocation method for its certification expenses in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce had the authority to pick an allocation method that gave the exporter a chance to get a price adjustment for certification expenses while "avoiding the distortions reflected in the company's recalculation." The judge added that Commerce properly supported its finding that the allocation method used by Sahamitr was distortive.

The Court of International Trade on May 2 again remanded the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allocation of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea was a de jure specific subsidy. Judge Mark Barnett said the agency illicitly considered factors used as part of a de facto specificity analysis to assess the program, noting that those factors can't be used to find if the program is specific as a matter of law. However, the judge sustained Commerce's findings that the full allotment amounted to a financial contribution to respondent Hyundai Steel Co. and that the company benefited from the allotment.

Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that classifying its substances used to "treat life-threatening diseases in young children" as food preparations "not elsewhere specified" as opposed to "medicaments" or items "for the use or benefit" of handicapped people would lead to the "parents of very ill children" paying higher prices for these substances. In its opening brief on April 30, Nutricia said that this isn't the result Congress intended and that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule "can and should be interpreted to avoid that result" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).

Exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. responded to a host arguments from the U.S. regarding the Commerce Department's surrogate value calculations on a variety of activated carbon inputs as part of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. In a reply brief filed last week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Carbon Activated said the Court of International Trade erred in sustaining Commerce's surrogate financial ratios and surrogate values for carbonized metal, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and ocean freight (Carbon Activated v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).

The U.S. announced April 26 that it's dropping fraud charges it brought in 2002 against Frontier Insurance Co., the surety for Lee-Hunt International, because Frontier no longer exists (U.S. v. Lee-Hunt International, Inc., CIT # 02-00816).

The U.S. opposed solar panel exporters’ motion for judgment in a case on an antidumping duty review on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China, saying that the Commerce Department had been right to only adjust a mandatory respondent’s antidumping duty by countervailing subsidy duties on the export-contingent programs used by the respondent (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).

A Chinese brick exporter fought back April 29 against opposition to its motion for judgment by the U.S. (see 2402130053) and domestic producers (see 2403120068), saying that its products weren't circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China because the products are actually magnesia alumina graphite bricks, which are duty-free. The Commerce Department is “cherry-picking” evidence from prior scope rulings to prove otherwise, it said (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).

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.

A U.S. motion to reconsider a Court of International Trade decision (see 2404180041) finding that CBP defied the implicit contractual term of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment under a customs bond from a surety company is "both procedurally and substantively flawed," surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. said (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).

Importer Fanuc Robotics America and the U.S. said in an April 26 joint status report that they have reached a settlement agreement on one out of the two remaining robot models at issue in their 2012 classification case. Classification of the last model has been taking longer due to its age and the retirement of a national import specialist, they said, repeating what they shared in a previous update in November (see 2311030029) (Fanuc Robotics America v. U.S., CIT # 12-00052).