A CBP remand determination that importer Diamond Tools Technology didn't evade antidumping and countervailing duty orders on diamond sawblades from China is correct, although the agency continues to err in its underlying explanations, the company said in its April 17 remand comments at the Court of International Trade. CBP admitted under protest that Diamond Tools didn't make a "material and false statement" in its March remand results (see 2303200072) but the importer argued that CBP still misinterprets the Enforce and Protect Act statute and misunderstands its authority (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).

The Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers refiled a motion to waive the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's redaction limits in a conflict-of-interest proceeding after the court rejected an initial bid to waive the requirements. The coalition asked the court for permission to redact 180 unique words, given that the reasons for redaction are rooted in existing judicial orders and the law, "are narrowly tailored toward" three groups of information grounded in the law and the redaction would not "frustrate the public policy regarding confidentiality in proceedings" at the Federal Circuit (Amsted Rail Company v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).

The Commerce Department illegally deducted Section 301 China tariff duties from exporter Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co.'s U.S. price in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China, Fufeng argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. Fufeng added in its seven-count complaint that Commerce improperly decided to directly value energy factors of production in its normal value calculation based on a revision of Ajinomoto (Malaysia) Berhad's preliminary financial ratio calculations (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00068).

The Commerce Department should have considered alternatives to account for an antidumping duty respondent's distorted costs even when faced with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent barring particular market situation adjustments to the sales-below-cost test, Ellwood City Forge argued in comments at the Court of International Trade. One alternative would have been for Commerce to adjust for the PMS under the sales-below-cost test because the relevant exporter's records don't accurately reflect the exporter's costs, the brief said (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00077).

A recent False Claims Act case brought over unpaid marking duties on imports of Mifeprex, the active ingredient for the abortion pill mifepristone, was filed by the Life Legal Defense Foundation in a bid to "take some gold out of Egypt," the foundation's lawyer Catherine Short told Trade Law Daily. "This company is making drugs that kill babies, and we were able to cut away some of their profit from that," Short said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 14 upheld the Commerce Department's finding that antidumping duty respondent Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. (ZMC) did not rebut the presumption of Chinese state government control, barring its claim to a separate rate in an AD review. Judges Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna and Todd Hughes ruled the decision was reasonable because a labor union, which is subject to Chinese government control, is the majority shareholder of ZMC "and has overlapping membership with the employee stock-ownership committee" (ESOC).

The Court of International Trade abused its discretion by combining a motion for a preliminary injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits with a motion for judgment on the agency record (see 2302280040), AD petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge M. Miller Baker committed "multiple legal and factual errors" in his opinion, issuing the judgment on a record developed via "limited discovery" and displaying multiple errors on the merits, the petitioner claimed (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

The Court of International Trade on April 11 upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 antidumping duty administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China, in the face of challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection raised by Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products.

The Court of International Trade is considering asking certain plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation how they would like to proceed with claims that are distinct from the ones already decided by the trade court. Speaking at an April 11 status conference with the government and representatives of the 15-member steering committee for the plaintiffs, Judge Mark Barnett asked if the court should ask those plaintiffs whether or not they want to continue to litigate the distinct claims, and if the claims move forward, whether there is any reason to wait to resolve them (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 12 upheld the Commerce Department's determination that corrosion-resistant steel imports from the United Arab Emirates circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel products from China. Judges Pauline Newman, Jimmie Reyna and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce properly supported the circumvention decision through evidence of patterns of trade, level of investment, nature of the production process in the UAE and the extent of the production facilities.