The U.S.'s customs penalty suit against importer Wanxiang America Corp., a U.S. subsidiary of a Chinese manufacturing company, is a "money grab, plain and simple," Michael Roll, counsel for WXA, said during oral argument at the Court of International Trade on May 17. Roll said that because the U.S. is only seeking a penalty for WXA's entries from a company with a 92.84% dumping rate and not entries made before or after the ones at issue from a company with a zero percent rate, it is clear the government is trying to "grab the money" (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).

The Commerce Department's new proposed regulations covering trade remedy proceedings may lead to a "significant number of new allegations and arguments in AD/CVD proceedings," Sidley Austin said in a client alert this week. Highlighting three of the potential new tools to be added to the agency's toolkit in the proposed rules, Sidley added that one of the mechanisms -- Commerce's removal of the regulation barring it from countervailing transnational subsidies -- may violate World Trade Organization commitments.

The Commerce Department failed to rely on the best available information when setting surrogate values for antidumping duty respondent Risen Energy Co.'s backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) inputs in the AD administrative review on solar cells from China in 2017-18, Risen argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Risen also challenged the Commerce's calculation of the company's financial ratios (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

Importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) failed to identify a flaw in the Court of International Trade's ruling concerning the origin of the company's uninterruptible power supplies, Judge Leo Gordon said in denying Cyber Power's bid for CIT reconsideration. The judge said the request "is premised on the incorrect assumption that the court found that" the importer overcame the presumption of correctness linked to CBP's country of origin determination, which found that the products were made in China.

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.

DOJ is seeking nearly $15 million in unpaid customs duties and civil penalties from five Florida importers at the Court of International Trade for alleged evasion of antidumping duties, according to a May 15 complaint (U.S. v. Lexjet, et al., CIT # 23-00105).

The Court of International Trade on May 16 upheld a finding that exporter Double Coin Holdings failed to rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping case, sustaining the company's 105.31% China-wide rate in an administrative review on off-the-road tires from China.

Importer Acquisition 362, d/b/a Strategic Import Supply (SIS), filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion requiring protests to be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP. SIS said that by establishing this requirement, the appellate court eliminated one statutory mechanism under which importers can file protests and encourages "premature, incomplete, sham protest filings" (Acquisition 362 v. U.S., U.S. # 22-1102).

The Court of International Trade ruled that exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) failed to show that the court should revisit its past order allowing four U.S. steel companies to intervene in a case on the International Trade Commission's injury determination related to imports of hot-rolled steel from Turkey. Judge Timothy Reif said the four companies champion claims that share a common question of law or fact with the case's main action, would be adversely affected if the court were to rule in Erdemir's favor and would not unduly delay the adjudication of the original parties' rights.

The U.S. reply in a scope case on Vandewater International's steel branch outlets fails to follow either scope principle established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key precedential opinion in Arcelormittal Stainless Belg. v. U.S., appellant Sigma Corp. told the appellate court in a reply brief. In violation of Arcelormittal, the government interpreted the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China in a vacuum devoid of any consideration of the way the order's language is used in the relevant industry and identified ambiguity where none exists, Sigma argued (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).