The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during June 6 oral arguments, questioned countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp.'s claims against the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy via its provision of electricity in the CVD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Responding to Nucor's argument that Commerce should have found the actual cost of electricity sold to the CVD respondents, Judge Raymond Chen said this "seems so unrealistically granular it doesn't make any sense" (POSCO v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1525).

The Court of International Trade properly required Commerce to drop its reliance on an Enforce and Protect Act case to reject third-country sales in an antidumping duty review, antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods (ZASF) said in a June 5 response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1469).

Three conservation groups moved to dismiss their suit at the Court of International Trade seeking to compel the Interior Department to decide whether Mexico is engaging in illegal trade and fishing of endangered wildlife. The groups ditched the suit after Interior determined Mexican nationals are violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which could lead to a ban on imports of Mexican wildlife (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00339).

The judicial and administrative decisions cited by U.S. and antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire to defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Unicatch Industrial Co. do not apply to Unicatch's court challenge, Unicatch said in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Commerce relied on AFA against Unicatch for failing to submit a complete cost reconciliation in the form requested by the agency, hitting the exporter with a 78.17% dumping rate (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2241).

Imported glass mosaic tiles from China should have been granted Section 301 tariff exclusions due to their size, said importer Anatolia Tile & Stone in a May 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Anatolia is challenging CBP's denial of 42 protests, which sought to remove the 25% duty assigned by CBP at liquidation. The company asked the court to order CBP to reliquidate the entries and refund any excess duties paid with interest (Anatolia Tile & Stone v. U.S., CIT # 21-00245).

The Commerce Department asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand in a countervailing duty case to reconsider its use of an adverse inference against exporter JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. related to its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program since the agency "refined its practice." In its opposition to JA Solar's and Risen Energy Co.'s motion for judgment in a case on an administrative review on solar cells from China, the U.S. said it altered its handling of verifying non-use of the EBCP to only require non-use certifications from all U.S. importers and not all downstream U.S. customers (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00231).

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 didn't adequately explain its decision to include four types of income categories when calculating the financial ratios for surrogate company Ayes Celikhasir in the antidumping duty investigation on metal lockers from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 30 opinion. Petitioner and plaintiff List Industries said that if these income categories were excluded from the ratio calculation, Ayes would have been revealed not to be a profitable company, barring it from being used as a surrogate.

The Commerce Department decided to use adverse facts available related to antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's billing adjustments following a Court of International Trade order questioning whether Assan acted to the best of its ability in its remand results submitted to the trade court May 31. The agency also revised the duty drawback adjustment methodology it applied to Assan by dividing the amount of duties exempted by a Turkish duty exemption program during the AD investigation period over the total quantity of exports made under the program to calculate a per-unit drawback adjustment. The result, if sustained, would be a de minimis rate for Assan (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00246).

CBP illegally failed to apply exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to eight shipments of hot wrought steel round bars even though the exclusions were granted after the shipments entered the U.S., importer Saarsteel argued in a complaint last week at the Court of International Trade. The company said it is CBP's practice to allow an importer to claim a granted exclusion via a post-summary correction or a protest when the exclusion was granted after the entry was made but "relates back to a submission date covering the entry" (Saarsteel Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00271).