Antidumping petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for an expedited briefing schedule in a case on the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available due to a 16-minute late submission (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

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.

CBP’s interpretation of the drawback statute and programming of its ACE Drawback Module led to an "absurd" rejection of substitution unused merchandise drawback eligibility for an importer of civil aviation equipment that disregards the basic structure of the tariff schedule, Spirit Aerosystems said in a March 24 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).

Congress intended for subsidies given to "disparate processed agricultural products" to be countervailable under countervailing duty laws, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives argued in a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to arguments from three Spanish olive exporters against the Commerce Department's "substantially dependent finding" in the Spanish olives CVD investigation, the coalition said that Commerce "responsibly interpreted the statutory language broadly" and in line with statutory intent (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).

Commerce made errors in its calculations, choice of data, and use of adverse facts available during the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to four separate motions for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade. The case combined several complaints all challenging aspects of Commerce’s final determination (see 2208300012) (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00219).

The Supreme Court of the U.S. denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's steel and aluminum tariff action under Section 232.

A Washington, D.C., court last week rejected a Russian citizen’s bid to dismiss government accusations that he misled investors about his company’s “key” space technology and several U.S. “adverse national security determinations” against the company. The ruling came after the Securities and Exchange Commission said Mikhail Kokorich, former CEO of space industry startup Momentus, made several “misrepresentations, false statements, and material omissions” in merger discussions with another firm, failing to disclose that the Commerce Department had rejected at least one of his company's export license applications and planned to deny another (SEC v. Mikhail Kokorich, D.D.C. # 21-1869).

CBP can confer classification "treatment" on a good through consistent decisions at a single port, the Court of International Trade ruled March 24. Finding importer Kent International's imported child safety seats for bicycles should be classified as seats rather than bicycle parts, Judge Leo Gordon agreed with Kent that the Port of New York/Newark's consistent classification of them as seats constituted treatment on a "national basis" because the standard does not require treatment to have been applied at multiple ports, only that CBP not take inconsistent actions over a two-year period.

The International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil with the other countries under consideration in the five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel flat products "was clearly inconsistent" with the Court of International Trade's past rulings on cumulation in sunset reviews, a group of U.S. companies argued (Cleveland-Cliffs v. United States, CIT # 22-00257).

Commerce illegally departed from its standard methodology when it decided to use third-country control number (CONNUM) costs in the final results of an antidumping duty review on lined paper products from India and then attempted to obscure its standard practice as a defense in court, Navneet said in a March 17 reply at the Court of International Trade. The court should remand the case to Commerce with instructions to recalculate Navneet’s 20.22% dumping margin, the brief said (Navneet Education v. U.S., CIT # 22-00132).