The Commerce Department improperly refused to accept relevant factual information submitted by importer Shelter Forest International Acquisition showing that its hardwood plywood was actually made in Vietnam and not China, Shelter Forest said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said that its submissions show that its products imported from Vietnamese producer Lechenwood were made of hardwood plywood with a core made in Vietnam, thus excluding the goods from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China per Commerce's own definition (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. United States, CIT # 23-00144).

CBP violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights by failing to provide it access to business confidential information (BCI) in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a highly anticipated opinion on July 27.

Importer PrimeSource Building Products on July 26 asked the Supreme Court to take up its case contesting President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products, urging the High Court to settle ambiguity in statutes delegating "vast legislative power to the Executive in favor of restraining the delegation" (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Sup. Ct. # 23-69).

The Commerce Department improperly used Cohen's d test to root out masked dumping because the agency violated statistical assmptions inherent to the test, SeAH Steel told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the opening brief of its appeal. While Commerce justified its use of the test because it used a whole population, not a sample, SeAH said the academic literature shows the d test was meant to be used as a measure of effect size only when the data comes from samples with "normal distributions, with roughly equal variance, and a sufficient number of data-points" (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The Commerce Department said that, after reviewing the facts, ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic., an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not a cross-owned input supplier of goods primarily dedicated to the production of downstream products. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on July 24, Commerce changed its tune regarding why the input in question, steel scrap, was mainly dedicated to the production of downstream steel goods as part of the 2018 CVD review on steel concrete rebar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).

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 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's defense of its decisions to impose lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs "makes a mockery of a detailed law in which Congress circumscribed what USTR may do and on what basis," four administrative and trade law professors said in an amicus brief. Filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 24, the professors said USTR did not have the statutory authority to impose the retaliatory duties on $320 billion worth of Chinese goods because the statute did not allow retaliation to serve as the basis for the duties, nor did it allow the drastically larger price tag (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The Court of International Trade on July 21 upheld surrogate value picks for five inputs in an antidumping duty administrative review on activated carbon from China. The five inputs are carbonized material, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and bituminous coal.

Importer PrimeSource Building Products moved for a partial stay of the Court of International Trade's order dismissing its suit challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products. PrimeSource said it wants the order stayed pending the resolution of its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (Primesource Building Products v. U.S., CIT # 20-00032).