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 in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade found that there was insufficient evidence to deny antidumping respondent Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited's (ZASF) Vietnam sales for use in calculating normal value. In the AD case, Commerce rejected ZASF's third-country sales to Vietnam for allegedly ending up in the U.S. to evade the relevant AD order -- this position was sent back by the trade court. On remand, the agency used the Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value, ending on a 1.73% dumping rate for ZASF (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Limited v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00031).

The Court of International Trade in a July 20 opinion redenominated the U.S.' counterclaim in a customs case brought by importer Cyber Power Systems as a defense, ruling that the U.S. does not have the statutory authority to make the counterclaim. With the ruling, Judge Claire Kelly denied Cyber Power's motion to toss the counterclaim as moot. The counterclaim sought to reclassify Cyber Powers' cable imports under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8544.42.90. Kelly ruled that none of the sections in the U.S. code cited by the U.S. give a basis for the counterclaim.

Agricultural net wraps for baling hay or other silage are not "parts" of agricultural machinery, but rather an input classifiable as fabric, the government said in a July 15 brief at the Court of International Trade (RKW Klerks Inc. v. U.S., CIT #20-00001).

Patented VicFlex sprinkler brackets are properly classified as “parts” of machines for dispersing or spraying liquids under tariff schedule subheading 8424.90.9080 and not subject to Section 301 duties, Victaulic said in a July 15 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Victaulic Company v. United States, CIT #22-00022).

The Commerce Department in July 18 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade flipped its positions on whether a particular market situation adjustment distorts the cost of production of a welded line pipe input and whether an adjustment should be made to antidumping duty respondent Nexteel Co.'s constructed value for sales of non-prime goods. The agency conformed to the trade court's ruling, finding a PMS doesn't exist and recalculating CVD without the non-prime goods adjustment, leaving respondents Nexteel and SeAH Steel Corp. with 1.12% and zero percent dumping rates, respectively. However, the agency stuck by its decision to reclassify Nexteel's reported losses over its suspended production lines (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).

A Court of International Trade case concerning imported pressure switches should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and timeliness, the government said in a July 15 brief opposing Environment One's motion to amend its summons. Alternatively, the government has asked the court to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted (Environment One Corporation v. United States et. al., CIT # 22-00124).

The Commerce Department properly used the expected method to set the non-selected respondents rate in an antidumping duty case by weight-averaging two adverse facts available rates and a zero percent margin, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 15 opinion. Issuing the ruling following three remands, Judge Mark Barnett said that the plaintiffs, led by Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise, did not present enough evidence to show that the mandatory respondents rates were not representative of the non-selected respondents' dumping margins.

The Commerce Department failed to show that it held a fair comparison between the constructed export price for three affiliated steel pipe producers and their home market price, the Court of International Trade ruled in a July 15 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu ruled that Commerce did not discuss how a fair comparison was reached in light of evidence showing two levels of trade in the home market, nor did the agency analyze detracting evidence placed on the record by the plaintiffs, led by Universal Tube and Plastic Industries.

The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) should not be allowed to intervene in a case contesting CBP's finding that Global Aluminum Distributor and Hialeah Aluminum Supply evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio argued. Filing an opposition brief at the Court of International Trade on July 13, with the support of Global Aluminum, Kingtom argued that AEFTC's motion is untimely, it failed to show a conditional right to intervene and the committee cannot intervene based on a shared claim or defense (Global Aluminum Distributor v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00198).