The Court of International Trade failed to consider all the relevant statutory language, legislative history and facts when it ruled in three recent opinions that Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs can be deducted from a respondent's U.S. price in antidumping duty calculations, Nippon Steel told the trade court in a motion for judgment Feb. 25. Nippon argued the tariffs should be considered remedial, not ordinary customs duties eligible for deductions (Nippon Steel Corporation v. U.S., CIT #21-00533).

The Department of Justice announced March 2 that it is setting up an interagency task force to enforce the deluge of sanctions imposed by the U.S. against Russia following its assault on Ukraine. Called Task Force KleptoCapture, it will be run by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.

A recent Court of International Trade opinion left prior court precedent on the question of what constitutes a substantial transformation "dead, or on life support," an analysis from Neville Peterson said. The result is that importers who have been told by CBP that the country of origin of their goods is the country of origin of the goods' major inputs or essential components will likely seek reconsideration of those rulings, seeking refunds on Section 301 China tariffs in particular, the firm said.

CBP ignored the Court of International Trade's ruling that it needs some finding of culpability before determining that importer Diamond Tools Technology evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on diamond sawblades from China, DTT said in a Feb. 28 brief. Instead, CBP just ignored the court's definitions of the terms "false" and "omission" and illogically claimed that the customs penalty law's establishment of specific degrees of culpability negates the Enforce and Protect Act's culpability requirement, DTT argued (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT #20-00060).

A Feb. 24 Court of International Trade decision could result in "inching toward a saner and more legally sound approach to origin determinations" involving the substantial transformation test, customs lawyer Larry Friedman of Barnes Richardson said in a blog post Feb. 24. The language in the decision is "generally favorable for a simplified and more reasonable approach to origin," after years of focus on pre-determined end use of assembled components following the trade court's unappealed 2016 decision in Energizer.

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 Commerce Department stuck by its decision to hit affiliated antidumping respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara with an adverse inference over their U.S. payment dates in Feb. 28 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. However, the agency dropped the adverse inference on the U.S. sales for which Commerce verified the correct date. The result, if sustained, is a weighted-average dumping margin of 91.74% for Ghigi/Zara (Ghigi 1870 S.P.A. v. United States, CIT #20-00023).

An investigation by CBP into alleged evasion of countervailing duties and antidumping duties on wooden cabinets from China has found substantial evidence of evasion by two importers. In a final EAPA determination, CBP found that importers, Splendid Trading and Superior Granite and Marble, engaged in a scheme to transship Chinese wooden cabinets through Malaysia, announcing that it will continue to suspend liquidation and require cash deposits on entries from the two importers.

Steel giant U.S. Steel argued that it should be able to file an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to support antidumping duty petitioner Welspun Tubular in the company's bid to get a full court rehearing on a key AD question. The rehearing request concerns whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test. U.S. Steel says it can address the importance of PMS provisions in proceedings involving products not made by Welspun (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

Neither importer Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. nor the U.S. succeeded in persuading the Court of International Trade that their side was right in a tiff over the country of origin for shipments of uninterruptible power supplies and a surge voltage protector. Judge Leo Gordon, in a Feb. 24 order, denied both parties' motions for judgment, ordering the litigants to pick dates on which to set up a trial.