Importer Spirit Aerosystems' reading of the statute pertaining to its drawback claim for unused substitution drawback would lead to "unpredictable and often absurd results," the U.S. said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Spirit's argument that CBP's implementation of the statute "misconstrues basic tariff terms, renders entire sections" of the law "inoperative, and requires the omission of certain words from the drawback statute," the government claimed (Spirit Aerosystems v. United States, CIT # 20-00094).

Aluminum extrusions from 14 more countries -- as well as additional types of aluminum extrusions from China -- face the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties after a U.S. producer coalition and a labor union filed petitions for new AD/CVD investigations with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission on Oct. 4.

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's method for picking an adverse facts available rate for antidumping duty respondent Sino-Maple as part of the sixth review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China. Judge Richard Eaton partially vacated his previous opinion in the case following oral argument with the parties, finding that Commerce was in fact not barred from using mandatory Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.'s "highest transaction-specific dumping margin" as Sino-Maple's AFA rate.

The Court of International Trade doesn't have subject-matter jurisdiction over the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) addition of entities to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 3 motion to dismiss. Seeking dismissal of a case filed by Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp., the government said that because the FLETF's decision is neither an embargo nor a quantitive restriction, the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the proceeding under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).

The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against Greek exporter Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry was "flawed" since the agency never gave the company a chance to comment on its calculation and analysis, Corinth argued in its Sept. 29 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The exporter added that Commerce also failed to support its use of a 41.04% AFA rate since the company didn't withhold information, impede the antidumping duty review on large diameter welded pipe from Greece or fail to submit information in the form and manner requested (Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2094).

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 Court of International Trade's decision ordering CBP to reliquidate customs entries flatly cuts against a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that ruled against reliquidation after a court case led to a higher dumping rate for a different exporter, retail giant Target told the appellate court (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).

The Commerce Department failed to support its position in a countervailing duty case that the South Korean government gave up some revenue through the provision of its emissions trading program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 29 opinion. Judge Mark Barnett wrote that while the Korean government may lose money by fully allocating emissions permits, it doesn't necessarily do so, given that companies that receive a standard allocation can obtain the permits through means that don't involve lining the government's pockets.

The Commerce Department unlawfully failed to offset interest expenses with interest income in calculating the costs of production for shrimp exporter Megaa Moda, the company said in a Sept. 29 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade (Megaa Moda Private Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00205).

A defendant in a criminal fraud case shouldn't be allowed to add his criminal attorney to a protective order in a related civil case, DOJ argued in a Sept. 28 motion at the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215).