The International Trade Commission’s finding that imports of methionine from Spain and Japan had a significant impact on the domestic industry and contributed to its declining performance was reasonable and correct, the government said in an Aug. 29 motion at the Court of International Trade (Adisseo Espana v. U.S., CIT #21-00562). The motion came in response to an Aug. 12 motion by Spanish exporter Adisseo, which argued that the commission overvalued the importance of price in its determination of injury in the antidumping duty investigation (see 2208150017).

Antidumping duty respondent Nagase & Co's oversight in submitting information to the Commerce Department leading to a "patently erroneous assessment rate," does not justify Commerce shirking its responsibility to provide remedial fairness, Nagase argued in an Aug. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While Nagase admits to its error, the respondent argued that Commerce still has an obligation to correct the mistake now that the agency knows of its existence (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

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.

Only an admissibility decision from CBP can stop a deemed exclusion from happening according to the law, importer Root Sciences argued at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a bid to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in its case over seized imports. The Court of International Trade previously ruled that it doesn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized the subject goods, finding that a seizure does not constitute an admissibility determination (see 2110070022). Root argued that this decision throws it into a "jurisdictional wilderness" and calls into question the validity of past decisions the trade court relied on for the notion that seizure before the expiration of the 30-day deemed exclusion window stops the running of the statutory deemed exclusion period (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 26 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. In the remand results, Commerce reversed its decisions finding that a particular market situation existed for a key input of the OCTG products, and adjusting respondent Nexteel Co.'s reported costs for the value of non-prime products at their sales price and allocating the difference between the full production cost and market value of the non-prime products to the production costs of the prime OCTG.

The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 29 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to reverse its finding that a particular market situation existed for an input of oil country tubular goods in South Korea. The court previously remanded the PMS determination as being unsupported by substantial evidence. The agency then flipped its finding, prompting Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves to sustain the remand results. Previously, the judge also sent back Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping, but since respondent SeAH Steel Corp. was given a de minimis dumping margin, the issue was moot.

The Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in an Aug. 29 nonprecedential opinion. Reversing the Court of International Trade's finding, judges Pauline Newman, Alvin Schall and Sharon Prost said Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate.

The Department of Commerce routinely made minimal effort to verify claims that imported specialty steel products easily could be supplied by domestic producers and therefore incorrectly denied product exclusions from Section 232 steel tariffs, LE Commodities said in an Aug. 24 complaint to the Court of International Trade (LE Commodities, LLC v. United States, CIT # 22-00245)

The Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 25 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a recent and highly anticipated opinion ruled that CBP cannot consider a country's non-market economy status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). The case, brought by importer Meyer Corp., now heads back to the Court of International Trade, which will hear arguments over how to appraise cookware imported by Meyer. John Peterson, counsel for Meyer, told Trade Law Daily that he is considering two options when the case gets back to the trade court: seek a retrial or mediation.