No explanation could make the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test, used to root out "masked" dumping, reasonable, the Canadian government and eight Canadian exporters argued in a proposed amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Seeking to tack their arguments onto the case in which the appellate court originally questioned the agency's use of the test, the amici said that Commerce is not using the d test "in any coherent sense" (Stupp Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

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 Court of International Trade should toss a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to reconsider its injury finding on hot-rolled steel from Turkey for lack of jurisdiction, four U.S. steel companies said. Filing a motion to dismiss at the trade court on July 31, Cleveland-Cliffs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises argued that Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, is not the proper jurisdiction for the case since Erdemir could have sought relief under Section 1581(c) (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).

The Commerce Department committed a host of errors in its 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, mandatory respondent Riverside Plywood Corp. and its cross-owned affiliate Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. said in a July 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The result of the review was a 17.06% CVD rate for the companies (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).

The Court of International Trade in a July 28 order upheld CBP's finding on remand that importer Diamond Tools Technology did not evade the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. The evasion finding applies to DTT's imports of diamond sawblades assembled in Thailand but made with Chinese cores and segments before Dec. 1, 2017.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., which found that CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by not giving it access to business confidential information in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, "may have broader implications," including on forced labor issues, customs lawyer Lawrence Friedman said in a July 28 blog post. If the decision "applies generally, it may require that" CBP make its record fully available, including BCI, which would be an "interesting unintended consequence" of this Enforce and Protect Act case, Friedman said.

The Commerce Department improperly refused to accept relevant factual information submitted by importer Shelter Forest International Acquisition showing that its hardwood plywood was actually made in Vietnam and not China, Shelter Forest said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said that its submissions show that its products imported from Vietnamese producer Lechenwood were made of hardwood plywood with a core made in Vietnam, thus excluding the goods from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China per Commerce's own definition (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. United States, CIT # 23-00144).

Importer PrimeSource Building Products on July 26 asked the Supreme Court to take up its case contesting President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products, urging the High Court to settle ambiguity in statutes delegating "vast legislative power to the Executive in favor of restraining the delegation" (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Sup. Ct. # 23-69).

CBP violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights by failing to provide it access to business confidential information (BCI) in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a highly anticipated opinion on July 27.

A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).