The Court of International Trade erroneously upheld the Commerce Department's finding that an Australian exporter did not reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and subsequent decision not to deduct the amount of the duties from the exporter's U.S. price, United States Steel Corp. argued in a Sept. 30 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (United States Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2078).

Surety company American Home Assurance Co.'s (AHAC's) affirmative defense of laches requires it to prove that it suffered prejudice given the government's delay in commencing a legal action over uncollected antidumping duties. AHAC has failed to do so and thus cannot make its laches claims, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 28 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The surety company has failed to show either defense or economic prejudice in arguing that the case should be dismissed since it was filed beyond the statute of limitations to collect the duties under the bond, the U.S. said (United States v. American Home Assurance Company, CIT #20-00175).

A group of insurers and importers filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York looking to seize a vessel as collateral for losses north of $39 million after thousands of shipping containers went overboard during a November 2020 voyage. Filing a five-count complaint at the district court, the plaintiffs said that the court should issue a warrant for the arrest of the vessel and its cargo given a group of shipping companies' damage to the cargo and breach of contract, among other violations (Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company of America v. M/V One Apus, S.D.N.Y. #22-08233).

CBP need not allow exporter Oman Fasteners to continue to post bond instead of paying Section 232 steel and aluminum duties given the exporter's "longstanding history" of failing to honor the bonding arrangement, the U.S. said in a Sept. 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. Replying to Oman Fasteners' motion to compel the U.S. to honor a CIT order, the government argued that the plaintiff's claims are based on an "incomplete telling of the facts," and that Oman Fasteners is not entitled to the privilege of bonding, especially when it has violated the bonding arrangement via under-bonding (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #20-00037).

The Court of International in a Sept. 27 order denied a joint motion from plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case and the U.S. to stay proceedings pending the trade court's resolution of an action looking into whether the Commerce Department's relevant scope determination was legal. Judge Mark Barnett held that the claims in the EAPA case "are largely independent of Commerce's scope ruling."

The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision upholding the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty review given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision calling the use of a statistical test underpinning the analysis into question, plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Sept. 26 motion. SeAH said the opinion also should be revisited over its move to uphold Commerce's inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses as general and administrative (G&A) expenses (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).

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.

Steel company NLMK Pennsylvania has "no basis" to argue that the Court of International Trade should take over the Section 232 tariff exclusion process and simply award the importer hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the trade court. Looking to rebut NLMK's arguments seeking to discredit the Commerce Department's denials of NLMK's 58 Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. said that the relief that the steel company seeks is "clear overreach" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

Despite sales terms to the contrary, a Hong Kong middleman never held title to merchandise imported from China and Taiwan into the U.S., so “first sale” valuation is unavailable and the goods should be valued at the price paid by the importer, CBP said in a recent ruling. Incoterms aside, the importer paid for freight and insurance, and title transferred alongside risk of loss directly from the manufacturer to the importer, with the middleman acting more as agent, CBP said in HQ H316892.

The Commerce Department must provide further explanation for, and if needed, reconsider its finding as to whether the "likely selling price" of non-prime plate set in antidumping respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books is the best available information for evaluating the cost of production, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 23 opinion. Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in a "parallel matter" instructing Commerce to find the actual cost of production for prime and non-prime cut-to-length plate, Judge Leo Gordon sent back Commerce's reliance on Dillinger's "likely selling price" of non-prime plate.