Antidumping duty respondent Grupo Simec failed to prove that it would suffer immediate and irreparable harm without an injunction against AD cash deposits, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 24 opinion denying the preliminary injunction motion. Judge Stephen Vaden added that Grupo Simec's evidence purportedly showing how it would be harmed without the injunction contained conclusory evidence that, if held to be sufficient to establish harm, would "eviscerate the operation of the antidumping laws."

The use of an entire population of data instead of a sample "sufficiently negates" the questions raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the use of the Cohen's d test in the differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 23 opinion rejecting antidumping duty respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s bid for reconsideration.

The commerce secretary's report allowing President Donald Trump to take tariff action on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act nor can it be reviewed for arbitrariness, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 20 reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if it was up for review, the secretary did not misconstrue the statute since it does not require the report to make a finding on the imminent nature of any threat to national security, the government said (USP Holdings, et al. v. United States, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 22-565).

A horizontal lawnmower engine should be excluded from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China, given the plain language of the orders' scope excludes horizontal engines, exporter Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00011).

The question of whether the Commerce Department has the statutory authority to conduct expedited reviews in countervailing duty investigations constitutes a "major question" that requires explicit delegation from Congress as established in the Supreme Court's West Virginia v. EPA decision, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations said in a supplemental brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 22 (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1021).

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.

"Post hoc" arguments from the Commerce Department and BlueScope Steel that the Australian exporter's deduction of antidumping duties from a transfer price was not a reimbursement of antidumping duties are contradicted by documents that confirm a deduction of the duties from the price BlueScope Steel charged to an affiliated importer, plaintiff-appellant U.S. Steel Corp. argued in a Feb. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).

The U.S. on Feb. 17 filed a customs penalty case against importer Fortune Energy, saying that the company falsely declared its aluminum extrusions as not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties when they should have been entered as Type 03. Alleging negligent violations of Section 1592, the government seeks a $120,004.30 penalty, based on double the amount of duties avoided by the importer (U.S. v. Fortune Energy, CIT # 23-00040).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 17 opinion set aside a March 2022 decision in a customs spat over reimported swimsuits to hear an additional argument from the U.S., though the court ultimately reached the same conclusion.

The Commerce Department gave a further explanation as to why its significant changes practice pertaining to successorship applies in a countervailing duty changed circumstances review where the predecessor company was not individually examined. Submitting remand results on Feb. 16 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce cited its standard established in the 2009 Pasta from Turkey CVD CCR to claim that it will make an affirmative successorship finding "only where there is no evidence of significant changes in the requesting party's operations, ownership, corporate or legal structure." This was not the case with plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products' acquisition of Rayonier A.M. Canada's (RYAM's) lumber mills, the agency said (GreenFirst Forest Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00097).