The Commerce Department legally selected Malaysian import data to value backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) in an antidumping duty review on solar cells from China because that data best corresponds to the inputs used by exporter Risen Energy Co., the U.S. argued in an Aug. 3 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-11550).

The Commerce Department did not satisfy its statutory obligations to tell antidumping duty respondents their submissions were deficient ahead of granting constructed export price adjustments, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 3 opinion. Remanding the 2019-20 review of the AD order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea, Judge Timothy Reif said the agency should provide the mandatory respondents with notice of their deficiencies and give them a chance to explain them.

The Court of International Trade improperly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a $5.7 million customs penalty suit against importer Katana Racing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an Aug. 3 opinion. While the trade court said Katana properly revoked a statute of limitations waiver making the U.S. government's suit untimely, Judges Sharon Prost, Alvin Schall and Todd Hughes said the statute of limitations "is not a jurisdictional time limit." Instead, it provides an "affirmative defense" that can be waived.

No explanation could make the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test, used to root out "masked" dumping, reasonable, the Canadian government and eight Canadian exporters argued in a proposed amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Seeking to tack their arguments onto the case in which the appellate court originally questioned the agency's use of the test, the amici said that Commerce is not using the d test "in any coherent sense" (Stupp Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department’s duty drawback calculation in its final remand redetermination for an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, AD respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret (Assan) said in its July 31 response comments (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00246).

The Court of International Trade should toss a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to reconsider its injury finding on hot-rolled steel from Turkey for lack of jurisdiction, four U.S. steel companies said. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on July 31, Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises argued that Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, is not the proper jurisdiction for the case since Erdemir could have sought relief under Section 1581(c) (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).

The Commerce Department committed a host of errors in its 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, mandatory respondent Riverside Plywood Corp. and its cross-owned affiliate Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. said in a July 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The result of the review was a 17.06% CVD rate for the companies (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).

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 in a July 28 order upheld CBP's finding on remand that importer Diamond Tools Technology did not evade the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. The evasion finding applies to DTT's imports of diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand but made with Chinese cores and segments before Dec. 1, 2017.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., which found that CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, "may have broader implications," including on forced labor issues, customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman said in a July 28 blog post. If the decision "applies generally, it may require that" CBP make its record fully available, including BCI, which would be an "interesting unintended consequence" of this Enforce and Protect Act case, Friedman said.