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 U.S. on Feb. 17 filed a customs penalty case against importer Fortune Energy, saying that the company falsely declared its aluminum extrusions as not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties when they should have been entered as Type 03. Alleging negligent violations of Section 1592, the government seeks a $120,004.30 penalty, based on double the amount of duties avoided by the importer (U.S. v. Fortune Energy, CIT # 23-00040).

The Commerce Department improperly used only one mandatory respondent in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Feb. 16 opinion. Citing a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that held Commerce may not use just one respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review, Judge Timothy Stanceu sent back the agency's respondent selection decision. The judge also blasted Commerce's use of an adverse facts available rate, taken from the petitioner after the one respondent backed out of the investigation, which the agency used for the non-individually selected respondents and the all-others rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 17 opinion set aside a March 2022 decision in a customs spat over reimported swimsuits to hear an additional argument from the U.S., though the court ultimately reached the same conclusion.

The Commerce Department gave a further explanation as to why its significant changes practice pertaining to successorship applies in a countervailing duty changed circumstances review where the predecessor company was not individually examined. Submitting remand results on Feb. 16 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce cited its standard established in the 2009 Pasta from Turkey CVD CCR to claim that it will make an affirmative successorship finding "only where there is no evidence of significant changes in the requesting party's operations, ownership, corporate or legal structure." This was not the case with plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's (RYAM's) lumber mills, the agency said (GreenFirst Forest Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00097).

The Court of International Trade properly dismissed importer Rimco's challenge to antidumping and countervailing duty challenge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 15 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While the importer filed its case under Section 1581(a), the true home for the action is Section 1581(c) since it challenges the final AD/CVD rates set by the Commerce Department. "The decision of what rate to apply is Commerce’s alone and, for that reason, the claims should have been brought as 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) challenges," the brief said (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 16 denied an importer and its owner's motion for reconsideration in a penalty case where they stand accused of customs fraud, as well as their bid to appeal a single issue in the case related to the date the alleged fraud was discovered (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 15 confidential opinion granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping case, enjoining the U.S. from "taking any action to enforce, implement, or execute" the duties set by the Commerce Department on steel nails from Oman. Judge M. Miller Baker also barred CBP from collecting AD duty cash deposits on the nails after Oman Fasteners argued that the 154.33% adverse facts available rate set as the cash deposit mark would bankrupt the company (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to apply a 10.54% adverse facts available countervailing duty rate to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program for respondent Yama Ribbons. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade Feb. 15, Commerce said the CVD rate "does not unreasonably penalize Yama as a cooperative respondent" and using AFA was warranted given the Chinese government's failure to cooperate in the case (Yama Ribbons and Bows v. United States, CIT # 20-00059).

The Commerce Department has illegally "tripled down" on its use of "data tainted by foreign-government subsidies" in calculating constructed value in an antidumping duty case, respondent Oman Fasteners argued in its Feb. 13 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Despite the Federal Circuit's previous opinion remanding the use of a surrogate company's financial data over subsidy concerns, "Commerce jumped from the frying pan to the fire" and used a new proxy that also received government subsidies, the brief said (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).