Exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi will appeal a September Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's use of the Turkish lira to value Habas' home-market sales as part of the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. The trade court said Commerce's use of the lira didn't deviate from its past practice or the established reasons underlying the practice (see 2309140049). Habas said it will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, CIT # 21-00527).

The Commerce Department doesn't have to "undertake the impossible task of choosing a perfect or near-perfect methodology" when rooting out "masked" dumping, petitioner Welspun Tubular said in a Nov. 6 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Welspun added that Commerce didn't have to "follow the teachings of statisticians on the Cohen's d test simply because Commerce has decided in its expert opinion to rely on the Cohen's d formula and the effect size coefficient corresponding to a grossly perceptible difference to identify whether price differences between customers, regions, or time periods are significant" (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

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 Commerce Department again failed to establish that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific as part of the countervailing duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 14 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly said that just because the subsidy program is limited, in this case to certain customers based on energy usage, doesn't mean that it is de jure specific. Commerce didn't explain how the program limits usage to certain industries or enterprises and failed to consider the program's economic and horizontal properties and application, the opinion said.

The Commerce Department didn't properly apply the "proper statutory test for affiliation" between antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. and one of its customers, BNK Steel Co., the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 13 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden said that Commerce, as part of the 2019-20 AD review of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, erred in basing its finding of affiliation between the two companies on a single shared human resources manager and the mere speculation that there could have been other ties between the companies.

Importer URE NSP Corp. moved to dismiss its case at the Court of International Trade challenging CBP's miscalculating of its antidumping duty payments on solar cells from Taiwan. The importer said in its complaint that CBP ignored its prior disclosure payments, then partially denied a protest seeking those funds (see 2308140010). The company asked the court to order a refund of about $311,00 plus interest for overpayment of duties (URE NSP Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00154).

The U.S. challenged exporter Risen Energy Co.'s motion to amend its complaint to add a challenge to the Commerce Department's decision to treat Article 26(2) Tax Exemption Program as countervailable. Filing a brief at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 9, the government said the motion to amend "is futile, and thus lacks merit" since Risen "failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to this claim and none of the limited exceptions to the exhaustion requirement apply" (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00153).

The Commerce Department's decision to include importer Precision Components' goods in the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China cuts against the "clear language of the scope" and Commerce's "historic treatment of the scope," Precision said in a Nov. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).

President Donald Trump didn't clearly misconstrue the statute when he revoked a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on Nov. 13. Granting the president wider discretion to make modifications to Section 201 duties, Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark said that the statute -- Section 2254(b)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1930 -- allows for trade-restricting modifications, as opposed to only trade-liberalizing ones.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 14 opinion again remanded the Commerce Department's de jure specificity finding regarding Germany's KAV program as part of the countervailing duty investigation of forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce, in its second remand results, did not explain how the German subsidy program limits usage to certain industries or enterprises and failed to consider the program's economic and horizontal properties and application. The program is available in Germany to certain customers based on energy usage. Kelly ruled that the fact that the program is limited does not mean that it is de jure specific.