The Commerce Department granted a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey (Prolamsa) on remand at the Court of International Trade, reversing course from its previous position. Finding that the totality of evidence supports the position that Prolamsa made sales at two levels of trade, Commerce dropped Prolamsa's dumping rate from 7.47% to 0.89% (Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT #20-00166).

Three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit probed the question of whether a group of U.S. steel companies, led by U.S. Steel Corp., could intervene in a spate of cases challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny certain importers exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. During an April 7 oral argument, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and Judges Pauline Newman and Todd Hughes expressed serious doubt as to whether the steel companies could join the exclusion challenges (California Steel Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).

The Commerce Department had to draw a line somewhere, and its use of a test to distinguish the production activities of producers and fabricators to determine industry support in antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India is in line with the law and prior court precedent, DOJ said in a reply brief filed April 6 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit signaled during an April 6 oral argument that whether a country is a non-market economy would not stand as a criterion in determining whether to grant an import first sale valuation. Responding to arguments from John Peterson, counsel for importer and plaintiff Meyer Corp. and Beverly Farrell of DOJ, three Federal Circuit judges -- Judge Todd Hughes in particular -- said that it was unlikely the government would succeed in defending the use of this criterion in customs law, as non-market economy principle is reserved for trade remedy laws (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).

The Commerce Department's finding that two EU agriculture subsidies -- the Basic Payment Scheme and sustainable land use (Greening) payments -- are de jure specific is illegal and defies a key past court ruling, exporters Agro Sevilla Aceitunas and Angel Camacho Alimentacion said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Building off a case currently at the trade court in which the court held that these subsidies are not de jure specific, Agro Sevilla and Camacho also challenged Commerce's definitions of "prior stage product" and "latter stage product," among other things (Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S. Coop. v. United States, CIT #22-00106).

The Commerce Department stuck by its use of the Cohen's d statistical test as part of its differential pricing analysis to detect "masked dumping" in antidumping proceedings, offering a more detailed explanation of the practice in April 4 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Responding to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's remand on the issue, Commerce repeatedly stressed that certain statistical assumptions did not need to be true to properly run the test since the test measures the practical rather than the statistical significance of the data and Commerce has the entire population of data rather than just a sample (Stupp Corp. v. United States, CIT #15-00334).

The Court of International Trade remanded parts of the 2018 countervailing duty review on utility scale wind towers from Vietnam in a March 24 opinion made public April 4. Judge Timothy Reif sent the case back to the Commerce Department for it to address evidence submitted by the CVD petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition over alleged manipulation of the denominators used in the benefit calculation and to substantiate its conclusion that respondent CS Wind Vietnam didn't import its steel plate, thereby neglecting an import duty exemption subsidy.

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.

In its argument disputing the Commerce Department's conclusion that the company is de facto controlled by the Chinese government, exporter Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export Corp. is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to "fundamentally rewrite" this element of antidumping proceedings, the U.S. argued. In its reply to ZMC's opening brief, DOJ said ZMC's stance, if upheld, would shift the burden to Commerce and require the agency to affirmatively prove the existence of government control by a majority shareholder, when the appellate court has already established that this burden is the respondents' (Zhejiang Machinery Import & Export v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2257).

The unanimous three-judge opinion at the U.S. Court of International Trade remanding the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on April 1 for correcting deficiencies in the agency’s Administrative Procedure Act compliance extends the current litigation at least until mid-summer. The opinion, written by Chief Judge Mark Barnett and coming two months to the day after Feb. 1 oral argument was held (see 2202010059), gives USTR 90 days, to June 30, to respond to the remand order, and orders the plaintiffs and the government to submit a joint status report 14 days after that, including a proposed schedule on “the further disposition of this litigation.”