Plaintiff-appellants led by Carbon Activated Tianjin were not required to exhaust their arguments against the use of Malaysian import data under Harmonized System subheading 2708.10 to calculate a surrogate value for coal tar because Commerce used data from the subheading for the first time in the antidumping duty review's final results, counsel for Carbon Activated told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during March 7 oral arguments (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1298).

The Court of International Trade erred in finding that importer Rimco was required to raise its claims that antidumping and countervailing duty rates violated the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment regarding excessive fines before the Commerce Department administratively, Rimco told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a March 8 reply brief (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's decision not to use adverse facts available for Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's billing adjustments in an antidumping duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, in a March 1 opinion made public March 8.

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 U.S. and importer Root Sciences struck a settlement in a case on whether Root's cannabis crude extract recovery machine imports should be seized as "drug paraphernalia," the importer said in a March 7 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Under the settlement, CBP will release the merchandise to the plaintiff and Root will end its suit, according to the consent motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1795).

CBP legally initiated an Enforce and Protect Act case on Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds even though they had been ruled exempt from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, in a Commerce Department scope ruling upheld by the Court of International Trade (see 2212190051), the government told the trade court in a March 7 brief. CBP said EAPA petitioner Endura Products' evasion allegations against the importer came before the CIT decision and were valid "at the time they were made," DOJ said (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00185).

The report from the commerce secretary concluding a Section 232 investigation is not "purely advisory" and actually gives the president a new power to regulate trade, so it "must be subject to judicial review" under the Administrative Procedure Act, petitioners led by USP Holdings argued at the U.S. Supreme Court in a March 2 brief (USP Holdings v. United States, U.S.C. # 22-565).

The Court of International Trade on March 3 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case that slashed the dumping margin for respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries after the agency accepted the company's answers to the Section A quesitonnaire response. CIT's order came after neither Ajmal nor AD petitioner Wheatland Tube submitted comments on the remand.

Taiwanese exporter Inventec Solar Energy Corp. (ISEC) had constructive knowledge that sales to JA Solar USA were destined for the U.S., so those sales should be included as U.S. sales in the antidumping duty rate calculated for ISEC in an administrative review on solar products from Taiwan, the Commerce Department said in March 2 remand results (JA Solar International v. United States, CIT # 21-00514).

The Court of International Trade on March 3 granted two plaintiff-intervenors' motion for a preliminary injunction stopping liquidation for their entries, rejecting government arguments that the injunction would have impermissibly expanded the issues in the case. Citing past CIT judgments, Judge Mark Barnett held that the enlargement concept is only reserved for cases where an intervenor adds new legal claims to those already before the court.