The Court of International Trade correctly dismissed appellant Glob Energy's claims for lack of jurisdiction in an Enforce and Protect Act case in which CBP said the company and others were transshipping Chinese xanthan gum through India to avoid antidumping duties, the U.S. said in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CBP liquidated Glob's entries and the company did not appeal the liquidations "through channels that would permit the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over those entries," and as a result, the liquidations become final and unreviewable, the brief said (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The Court of International Trade remanded aspects of the final results of the Commerce Department's less-than-fair-value investigation of raw honey from Argentina, finding that Commerce's decision to use exporter Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for Argentinian beekeeper's production costs and its decision to compare Nexco's third-country sales and U.S. sales were not properly explained. However, the court did agree with Commerce's decision to compare Nexco's costs on a monthly basis for the purposes of the sales below cost test and sustained that aspect of the final determination.

A rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., upholding President Donald Trump's decision to expand Section 232 duties on "derivatives" of steel and aluminum products, is "unwarranted," the U.S. argued in a reply brief. While the petitioners, led by PrimeSource, continue to "demur," the U.S. said that the Federal Circuit's decision is "consistent with" Supreme Court and past Federal Circuit decisions, namely Transpacific Steel v. U.S., in which the court said that the president can take action beyond the procedural time limits set in the statute as long as it comports with the original duties' plan of action (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 21-2066).

The Court of International Trade on June 7 upheld the Commerce Department's classification of the surrogate values for aluminum ash byproduct and rolling oil inputs in the first antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum foil from China, as well as the agency's decision to use Maersk data to calculate surrogate freight costs and its refusal to grant respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. a double remedies adjustment for input subsidies the respondent said were countervailable.

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's new methodology for evaluating compliance with a 2019 antidumping duty suspension agreement's requirement to eliminate 85% of dumping has forced industry players to "bet their compliance" on "speculation and estimation," exporter International Greenhouse Produce (IGP) argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The exporter added that Commerce also erred by "treating certain transactions involving U.S. brokers as U.S. sales," jettisoning the definition of "broker" seemingly settled in the 1960s (International Greenhouse Produce v. U.S., CIT # 23-00093).

The Court of International Trade properly required Commerce to drop its reliance on an Enforce and Protect Act case to reject third-country sales in an antidumping duty review, antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods (ZASF) said in a June 5 response brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 2023-1469).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, during June 6 oral arguments, questioned countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp.'s claims against the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy via its provision of electricity in the CVD investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. Responding to Nucor's argument that Commerce should have found the actual cost of electricity sold to the CVD respondents, Judge Raymond Chen said this "seems so unrealistically granular it doesn't make any sense" (POSCO v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1525).

Three conservation groups moved to dismiss their suit at the Court of International Trade seeking to compel the Interior Department to decide whether Mexico is engaging in illegal trade and fishing of endangered wildlife. The groups ditched the suit after Interior determined Mexican nationals are violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which could lead to a ban on imports of Mexican wildlife (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00339).

The judicial and administrative decisions cited by U.S. and antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire to defend the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Unicatch Industrial Co. do not apply to Unicatch's court challenge, Unicatch said in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Commerce relied on AFA against Unicatch for failing to submit a complete cost reconciliation in the form requested by the agency, hitting the exporter with a 78.17% dumping rate (Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2241).