Judge Timothy Dyk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sharply questioned CBP at oral argument on whether the agency violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that found that the importer evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pencils from China (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).

Heat-treated forged steel rods imported by ME Global are properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as "other bars" not further worked than forged, rather than in the importer's preferred classification as "grinding balls and similar articles for mills," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 2 decision.

Plaintiffs led by Bioparques de Occidente have jurisdiction to challenge the Commerce Department's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation following the termination of a suspension agreement, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that no challenges to restarting investigations are valid unless part of a challenge to a final determination (see 2204140067), and Bioparques' case challenges a final determination, the court has jurisdiction to hear these claims.

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 hit Greek exporter Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry with a 41.04% total adverse facts available antidumping duty rate, given that its reported costs were not reconciled to its normal books and records, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Leo Gordon said the law does not require Commerce to respond to Corinth's arguments on its use of total AFA, which the agency employed in the first instance amid the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Greece.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 1 upheld the Commerce Department's valuation of an activated carbon input using data from a country different from the primary surrogate country. Judges Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark said that just because Commerce departed from what it typically does in preferring to take all the data from the primary surrogate country, this "does not mean that what it did do is unsupported by substantial evidence."

The Commerce Department properly used financial statements from Indian company Sundram as the source of surrogate financial data in the antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Oman, despite evidence the company received countervailable subsidies, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After Commerce winnowed potential surrogate companies from 11, the two remaining companies -- Hi-Tech Fastener Manufacturer and Sundram -- received subsidies. Since Sundram's data was contemporaneous with the investigation period and Hi-Tech's was not, Commerce legally went with Sundram, the government said in its reply brief (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).

CBP did not adequately justify treating the same evidence differently when it reversed a recent finding on aluminum extrusions from China, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee told the Court of International Trade. In CBP's remand decision that reversed its finding that six companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on the extrusions, the industry organization said CBP used most, if not all, the same evidence "without providing a rational explanation" (H&E Home Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00337).

CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings abused its discretion when it overturned a determination of evasion in an administrative review, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) said in an April 26 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The original determination found that Kingtom Aluminio SRL had evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipment through the Dominican Republic. The AEFTC asked the court to remand the case to CBP (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT # 22-00236).

The Enforce and Protect Act case involving Aspects Furniture International is not one of a lack of cooperation, "but instead one of 'too much' cooperation for CBP to handle, so much so that CBP chose to abuse its discretion" in ignoring the record completely, Aspects told the Court of International Trade. Submitting opposing comments on CBP's remand results, the bedroom furniture importer said CBP made "general, conclusory" explanations of its evasion decision based on the fact that it saw employees of Aspects' Chinese satellite office, Aspects Nantong, destroying information (Aspects Furniture International v. United States, CIT # 20-03824).