The Commerce Department flipped its position in an antidumping duty case, finding that a constructed export price offset was not warranted for AD respondents Husteel and Hyundai in the 2019-20 AD review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Issuing its remand results Oct. 31 at the Court of International Trade, the agency said its per unit analysis showed the home market level of trade is "not at a more advanced stage of distribution than the" level of trade of the constructed export price level of either respondent (Wheatland Tube v. U.S., CIT # 22-00160).

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 properly calculated the manufacturing overhead ratio in an antidumping duty review because the agency complied with the Court of International Trade's remand order regarding the calculation, the trade court said in an Oct. 30 opinion. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce legally used the amount for indirect production expenses in the ratio's numerator while stating its reasons for subtracting energy costs from this number and placing them in the denominator, as instructed.

The Commerce Department's analysis of whether a company from a non-market economy has rebutted the presumption of government control was improperly applied to exporters that are minority-owned by state-owned enterprises, exporters Aeolus Tyre Co. and Guizhou Tyre Co. said in a pair of opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Both companies said Commerce instead should have considered all four factors relating to the presumption of foreign state control and not just the "truncated analysis" of whether potential control over export activities via control of management selection was in play (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

The U.S. Supreme Court denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for writ of certiorari in a case on President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products. PrimeSource argued that the president's decision to extend the duties onto these goods was unlawful since it was made beyond procedural time limits laid out in the statute (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-69).

Importer Cherish Your Health Food "failed to exercise reasonable care and competence" in submitting import documents related to its entries of fresh garlic from China, the U.S. said in an Oct. 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result of the company's "negligent violations" of customs laws, the U.S. is seeking over $254,000 related to a group of three entries, dubbed "Group A," it said (United States v. Cherish Your Health Food, CIT # 23-00230).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 30 denied a petition for writ of certiorari regarding one question on Nebraska man Byungmin Chae's customs broker license exam. Chae took the test in April 2018 and subsequently took the result through multiple levels of administrative and judicial appeal before seeking Supreme Court review. He will remain one correct answer shy of the 75% threshold needed to pass the exam (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-200).

CBP failed to apply an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative-granted Section 301 exclusion for "flexible pressure sensitive LCD display devices used as a surface for electronic wiring" to importer Kent Displays' merchandise, the importer told the Court of International Trade in an Oct. 27 motion for summary judgment. Kent argued that its Model WT16312 Dashboard is the type of device as described by the exclusion and, as such, should be free of the 25% Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9013.80.7000 (Kent Displays v. United States, CIT # 20-00156).

A CBP headquarters decision on a protest is a “prior interpretive ruling or decision" that Ohio-based tent importer Under the Weather should have been able to rely on for tariff classification purposes, and as a result its classification challenge on backpacking tents shouldn't be dismissed, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Oct. 26 brief at the Court of International Trade (Under the Weather v. U.S., CIT # 21-00211).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order granted the U.S. motion to enter an amended protective order in Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The order dismissed Ninestar's motion to compel the unredacted administrative record as moot, while clarifying that the order was issued "without prejudice to the parties' rights to petition the court to further modify the terms of the APO" or their right to challenge the designation of materials as confidential under the APO (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).