The Commerce Department erred when it switched its zero percent dumping margin for Greek exporter Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry (CPW) to a 41.04% dumping rate despite the fact that the data was "entirely unchanged," the exporter told the Court of International Trade in a March 31 complaint. CPW also contested Commerce's use of adverse facts available despite the fact that it fully cooperated in the antidumping duty review and the agency's failure to conduct a verification, virtual or otherwise (Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry v. United States, CIT #22-00063).

There is no error in the Commerce Department's liquidation instructions, so importer MS Solar's lawsuit under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction, should be dismissed, the U.S. said in a March 30 reply brief backing its motion to dismiss. Instead, the case should have been filed under Section 1581(c) to contest the antidumping duty review itself, the brief said (MS Solar Investments v. United States, CIT #21-00303).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on March 30 in an antidumping duty case affirming that the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test. The petitioner, Welspun Tubular, unsuccessfully requested a stay of the mandate so that it could appeal the matter to the Supreme Court (see 2203240063). The appellate court said that a stay of the mandate was not needed to preserve this right. In the case's opinion, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can only make a PMS adjustment when calculating constructed value, affirming a long line of Court of International Trade decisions (see 2203220082) (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

Taiwanese corrosion-resistant steel products exporters Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. and Prospeity Tieh signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty matter at the Court of International Trade. On remand, Commerce reversed its decision to collapse mandatory respondents Yieh Phui and Synn Industrial Co. with one of their affiliates, Propserity Tieh Enterprise Co., in a bid to bring its stance in line with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. "It is our position that the Department’s decision on the collapsing issue made in the Remand Results is in line with the [Federal Circuit's] decision," Yieh Phui's comments said (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT Consol. #16-00138).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Italian pasta exporters La Molisana and Valdigrano di Flavio Pagani have not provided "compelling reasons" for the Commerce Department to part with its "longstanding" and "reasonable" practice for reporting the protein content of pasta in an antidumping case, the U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a March 28 brief. Rather, the relevant statute, past agency practice and case law all show that Commerce properly based its product-matching criteria on physical characteristics. In doing so, the agency said it legally derived the pasta's protein content -- a physical characteristic -- from the nutrition information on the packaging label (La Molisana v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00291).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the sanctions listing of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, finding that the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control provided proper evidence for the listing. The court also held that while Deripaska was found to no longer own two major energy companies, OFAC found him to still operate them, justifying his placement in the Russian sanctions regime.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is an illegal tax on exports and may not be enforced by the U.S., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said in a March 24 opinion. Affirming oil exporter Trafigura Trading's win in a Texas district court, Judges Jacques Wiener and James Ho ruled that the fund constitutes a tax, rather than a user fee, and violates the constitutional ban on export taxes. Judge James Graves dissented, writing that because there was a legitimate dispute on whether the fund is a user fee, the district court's order should be vacated (Trafigura Trading v. U.S., 5th Cir. #21-20127).

Washington-based importer Keirton USA isn't permitted to import drug paraphernalia since Washington state law doesn't expressly authorize the possession of such items, the U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a March 28 cross-motion for judgment. If the state's current laws did authorize possession of drug paraphernalia, then the mere absence of criminal liability -- the situation in Washington -- would consume the whole statute federally outlawing possession of drug paraphernalia, DOJ said (Keirton USA, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00452).