Protests seeking refunds for granted exclusions from Section 232 tariffs must be filed in a timely manner, even when the process is complicated by government errors, the DOJ argued in a Jan. 27 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (SXP Schulz Xtruded Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00136).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 27 order let the Commerce Department add a questionnaire deficiencies analysis to the record in an antidumping duty case. The order said the memorandum is appropriately part of the record because the agency used it in coming up with the review's final results. Judge Stephen Vaden held that omitting the analysis would "frustrate judicial review," and that, despite respondent Grupo Simec's claims, Commerce did not act in bad faith by leaving the review off the record.

The U.S. filed appeals against four World Trade Organization dispute panel rulings that found the U.S. Section 232 national security tariffs on steel and aluminum violated global trade rules. The U.S. said during the Jan. 27 meeting of the dispute settlement body it will take the case to the Appellate Body -- the next tier of the WTO's dispute settlement system that stands defunct due to U.S. refusal to seat members on the body over reform concerns.

The Commerce Department slashed the dumping margin for exporter Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries on remand in an antidumping review after accepting the respondent's answers to Section A of the AD questionnaire. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 26, Commerce dropped the dumping margin for Ajmal to 0.57% after using the company's own data as opposed to adverse facts available to calculate the margin. The agency originally rejected the submission after it was submitted late by less than two hours due to COVID-19-related technical difficulties (Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00587).

The Commerce Department properly found that foreign manufacturer BlueScope Steel did not reimburse its affiliated importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for the amount of antidumping duties BlueScope Americas paid on imports of hot-rolled steel flat products, defendant-appellees BlueScope and BlueScope Americas argued in a Jan. 25 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petitioner U.S. Steel's claims to the contrary rest on a misinterpretation of the record and inappropriately claim BlueScope Americas was indirectly reimbursed via formula price provisions laid out in a supply agreement between BlueScope and BlueScope Americas, the brief said (U.S. Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 opinion ordered the Commerce Department to drop to zero a 26.50% estimated subsidy rate for the provision of land to an affiliate of respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited (GFL) that was included in GFL's countervailing duty rate in a CVD investigation. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce should not have included the subsidy because the agency overlooked the type of relationship the regulation requires between subsidies to inputs and the downstream product in the production chain.

The Court of International Trade in a Jan. 25 opinion dismissed a case from J.D. Irving on the Commerce Department's cash deposit instructions to CBP after the 2019 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. Judge Timothy Reif said that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, since jurisdiction would have been available under Section 1581(c), "but for the decision" by parties involved to request a binational panel review of the AD review under USMCA.

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 government's motion to dismiss an Enforce and Protect Act case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the entries at issue have been liquidated would deprive importer Royal Brush Manufacturing of any judicial recourse and allow CBP's illegal liquidation of the entries, Royal Brush argued in a Jan. 23 reply brief. Arguing the case is moot because of the liquidations misconstrues the law and presumes incorrectly that Royal Brush’s interests are limited to the erroneous assessment of additional duties," the importer said (Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1226).

The Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision to send back the Commerce Department's adverse facts available rate for antidumping duty respondent Sino-Maple, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 23 brief. The decision is based on an "incorrect interpretation of" the statute, and the parties never presented the issue of whether the statute, 19 U.S.C. Section 1677e(d), lets Commerce use a transaction-specific margin as an adverse rate, the government claimed (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. U.S., CIT # 19-00144).