Usage rights at the Port of Incheon granted to Hyundai Steel by the Korean government are countervailable, but did not require a less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) analysis as part of a countervailing duty investigation, the Commerce Department said in its April 10 remand results at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00536).

The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must review a three-judge panel's decision finding that China Custom Manufacturing Inc.'s solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. The exporter said that full court rehearing is needed to "secure and maintain uniformity" of the appellate court's prior decision regarding the "unambiguous plain language" of the finished merchandise exclusion rule (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 6 denied a motion from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers to waive the court's redaction limits so as to hide the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the conflict-of-interest proceeding. Judge Evan Wallach said that the coalition's motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355)

The Commerce Department erred when it decided that debt-to-equity swaps as part of a corporate workout program for Korean steel manufacturer Dongbu were countervailable subsidies, the company said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00055).

The U.S. cannot escape Congress' plain meaning in requiring CBP to distribute interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, "no matter how many new arguments DOJ throws into its brief on appeal," appellants led by Hilex Poly Co. argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. DOJ tries to "rewrite history," seeing as its interpretation "flies in the face of the statute's command to distribute 'all interest,'" the brief said (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).

The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back Commerce’s third remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Taiwan.

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 legally used the expected method to calculate the antidumping duty rate for non-individually examined respondents in the administrative review of the AD order on steel nails from Taiwan, the agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief. The agency used the total adverse facts available rate for two non-cooperative respondents as the all-others rate (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).

A recent appellate court ruling requiring the Commerce Department to pick more than one mandatory respondent in certain antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings doesn’t apply to all cases, the agency said. Commerce said "case-specific circumstances" free it of that obligation.

As filing day approaches, the calendar is marked with a big figurative red X, multiple alerts have been set and hours have been spent combing through documents to make sure the Commerce Department’s ACCESS system accepts the submission. But sometimes, despite all the preparation, something derails the process and the documents are turned in late. Suddenly, a routine part of the job has morphed into every lawyer’s nightmare -- a missed deadline.