The Commerce Department stuck by its positions in an antidumping duty review, in Aug. 23 remand results. The agency further explained its selection of India as the primary surrogate country and its analysis of respondent NTSF Seafoods' reporting of the company's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of the fillets (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT #20-00105).

A U.S.-based shipper said a Taiwanese container shipping company violated Shipping Act regulations when it failed to supply agreed upon cargo capacity. MSRF, based in Illinois, said Yang Ming Transport “refused to provide more than a fraction of the cargo capacity that MSRF requested and needed” and violated the terms of their contract, forcing MSRF to buy cargo space on the “inflated” spot market. In an August complaint filed to the Federal Maritime Commission, MSRF said the FMC should investigate Yang Ming’s practices and order the container shipping company to pay “reparations.”

The Commerce Department unlawfully used an alternate method for calculating normal value in an antidumping duty review on goods from China, respondent Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products argued in an Aug. 22 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The exporter argued Commerce illegally based normal value on the price at which the subject merchandise, square tubes, is sold in other countries, rather than base normal value on the quantity of raw materials used to make the square tubes (Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00116).

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 erred in rejecting food and vegetable processing giant Seneca Foods Corporation's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, Seneca argued in an Aug. 19 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The vegetable canning company said that Commerce violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to meaningfully consider and explain its rejection of the exclusion requests (Seneca Foods Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00243).

The Commerce Department should accept an exporter's evidence of entries to establish a separate rate in an antidumping duty case, or else conclude that it had no shipments and not review the company, the exporter, Ningbo Qixin, argued in an Aug. 18 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Canadian Solar International, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that called into question the use of first sale treatment for imported goods involving non-market economy countries (see 2208110060) is largely seen as providing a welcome relief to importers, several law firms said. "For those importers enjoying the benefits of lower declared values and duties, particularly from China in light of Section 301 tariffs, there is no longer a need for concern now that, on appeal, the court has given first sale a nod," Sandler Travis lawyer Lenny Feldman said on a podcast. The original CIT decision (Meyer Corporation v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1392) raised some concerns for the future of first sale treatment (see 2104200028).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 upheld the Commerce Department’s decision to apply facts available to production costs for a French steel plate exporter unable to distinguish between costs for its prime and non-prime merchandise, but again remanded the agency’s determination to use sales prices as a stand-in.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 dismissed a lawsuit filed by the maker of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps and other importers to challenge an Enforce and Protect Act determination that they evaded antidumping duties on xanthan gum from China. The trade court found the soapmaker, All One God Faith, as well as another importer did not file suit under jurisdiction provisions for denied protests, and so could not overcome the erroneous liquidation of their entries by CBP.

A Commerce Department scope ruling improperly found that two-ply hardwood plywood falls under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China, plaintiffs Vietnam Finewood, Far East American and Liberty Woods said in an Aug. 16 motion at the Court of International Trade (Vietnam Finewood Company Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #22-00049).