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 Oct. 7 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade dropped its use of adverse facts available pertaining to the use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program for one respondent in a countervailing duty review but not the other mandatory respondent. Commerce found that JA Solar Co., provided enough data to fill gaps left by the Chinese government's failure to provide certain information to prove that its U.S. customers did not benefit from the EBCP while Risen Energy Co. did not (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #20-03912).

When the Court of International Trade on Sept. 13 ruled that the Commerce Department could use adverse facts available for use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, an appeal of the matter seemed inevitable. The trade court had issued a string of opinions rejecting Commerce's ability to use AFA in this way, and the U.S. had refused to appeal, leading to the issue floating in legal limbo given CIT's lack of power to issue a precedential opinion. Judge M. Miller Baker's opinion upholding use of AFA put the power to appeal in the hands of the countervailing duty respondents (see 2209140029). While an appeal may seem straightforward, other concerns cloud the prospect.

The International Trade Commission was wrong not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil with imports from China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. in a five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the products, U.S. company Cleveland-Cliffs argued in an Oct. 5 complaint the Court of International Trade. The ITC further erred by focusing on the likely volume of the Brazilian imports in its cumulation analysis in the injury investigation, resulting in an "impermissible circular" injury analysis, the complaint said (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00257).

CBP did not violate the law by refusing to make a referral to the Commerce Department on a question of country of origin since CBP was "fully able to determine" that the wooden cabinets and vanities at issue in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation were covered by the relevant orders, petitioner Masterbrand Cabinets argued in an Oct. 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion ruled that CBP properly classified net wraps used for bailing hay as a warp knit fabric under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00. Judge Mark Barnett ruled against classification under plaintiff RKW Klerks' preferred subheading 8433.90.50 as "parts" of "harvesting or threshing machinery."

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.

CBP filed remand results in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade Oct. 3, continuing to find products from importers Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China. The U.S. had filed a voluntary remand request to add the record of the Commerce Department's scope ruling to the record, but after putting it on the record, CBP stuck to its guns on the evasion finding, declaring that the scope ruling supported its initial decision (Ikadan System USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00592).

The Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA demands that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reconsider its decision finding that a protest with CBP is needed to retroactively apply Section 301 duty exclusions, the appellants and importers ARP Materials and Harrison Steel Castings argued in an Oct. 4 brief. Seeking reconsideration at the appellate court, ARP and Harrison said that the Federal Circuit's opinion does not consider the EPA case, which embraced the "major questions doctrine" -- the idea that federal agencies need explicit congressional approval to regulate issues fundamental to the economy (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

The U.S. Supreme Court in an Oct. 3 order took up a case over whether the government can indict a foreign state-owned bank under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Turkey's state-owned bank, Halkbank, was charged in October 2019 with fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act after allegedly working with Iran to evade U.S. sanctions. The case was brought to a New York district court, where a judge allowed the prosecution to proceed, finding that the FSIA doesn't extend to criminal cases and that if it did, its commercial activity exemptions allow for prosecution of the case (Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. U.S., #21-1450).