The government's request for a remand in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation to provide the parties with access to confidential business information is a "hollow" one since the parties have already gained access to this information via a judicial protective order at the Court of International Trade, plaintiff Phoenix Metal Co. said. Opposing the voluntary remand request from the U.S., Phoenix said the court should further explain CBP's decision to reject any information deemed to be "new factual information" (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).

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 should not grant improper Diamond Tools Technology's application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act since the government's position in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation was "substantially justified" and the case presented a "matter of first impression and a novel issue," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 27 reply brief (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. on Nov. 27 filed a partial motion to remand regarding the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment in exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's case concerning the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey. The government said it wants another chance to consider or further explain the "ratio used for the duty drawback adjustment" in the case after considering Assan's arguments. Assan consented to the request, while the petitioners, led by the Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group, said it takes no position on the motion without having looked at a copy of the motion (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00616).

CBP failed to apply a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion on G&H Diversified Manufacturing's steel tube entry, the importer argued in a Nov. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. G&H said CBP had said on at least three separate occasions that the classification of the imports was correct and that the classification was excluded from having to pay the national security duties as determined by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

The Commerce Department properly hit exporter Kumar Industries with a 13.61% adverse facts available dumping rate due to the respondent's "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners' ownership interest in two unnamed companies, companies A and B, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 22 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the rate as part of the first antidumping duty review on glycine from India, finding that Kumar "raised more questions than it answered" in its submissions, preventing Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 27 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not Kaptan's cross-owned input supplier. Judge Gary Katzmann upheld Commerce's finding that Nur's steel scrap was not necessarily primarily dedicated to Kaptan's rebar production, and its consideration of Nur's business activities as part of this analysis.

The Court of International Trade properly said that importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods frozen fruit mixture entries are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0811.90.80 as "Fruit ... frozen," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 21 reply brief. The trade court "committed no legal error in interpreting" the terms "fruit," "other" and "food preparations" since the terms are defined by "dictionaries, Explanatory Notes, and legal standards" set by the Federal Circuit and other courts, the government said (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "unequivocally held" that the Commerce Department could deduct Section 232 national security duties from U.S. price in antidumping duty cases, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 17 supplemental brief at the Court of International Trade.