The Commerce Department erred when it found that Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from China via the United Arab Emirates, AGIS said in its Feb. 14 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1199).

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 Court of International Trade in a Feb. 14 order granted an injunction until the conclusion of litigation against the liquidation of two plaintiffs' mattress imports. The Department of Justice pushed back against that timeline. It urged an end date of April 30, the same end date as the first administrative review period of the antidumping duty order the plaintiffs are contesting. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the plaintiffs, Best Mattresses International and Rose Lion Furniture International, sufficiently showed a likelihood to succeed on the merits of the case and that they would be irreparably harmed without the indefinite injunction.

The effective dates of the Commerce Department's partial revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells from China ran contrary to the agency's stated practice, because they excluded unliquidated entries that weren't subject to the final results of an administrative review or automatic liquidation at the time, importer Source Global said in a Feb. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Source Global, PBC v. United States, CIT #22-00009).

Dominican aluminum extrusion manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio is guilty of evading the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CBP said in a Feb. 4 evasion determination. Already party to two Enforce and Protect Act evasion inquiries as a producer, Kingtom was found guilty of evasion in a separate case where it acted as the importer of record. In fact, CBP used the fact that Kingtom began importing aluminum extrusions into the U.S. itself following the other two EAPA cases as evidence of Kingtom's alleged evasion.

A CBP protest was not needed to establish jurisdiction in two companies' challenge to CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion since the challenge is not an entry-specific matter, the companies, ARP Materials and Harrison Steel, said in a Feb. 7 brief. Replying to the U.S.'s arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the plaintiff-appellants said that their challenge has jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction provision, since the action relates to CBP's imposition of the requirements of an "inapt statute" to all the entries excluded from tariff lists 2 and 3 (ARP Materials Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit probed the limits of the president's authority when implementing Section 232 national security tariffs during Feb. 9 oral arguments in a case representing a broad challenge to presidential action under the statute. Questions revolved around what elements, if any, of the process was judicially reviewable, with the plaintiffs, led by USP Holdings, arguing that the report issued by the commerce secretary to the president, which permits the president to impose the tariffs, is a final agency action and thus reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (USP Holdings, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1726).

The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should consider the question of whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value in antidumping duty proceedings, defendant-appellant Welspun Tubular said in a Feb. 8 petition for rehearing en banc (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

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 cannot rely on adverse facts available in response the Chinese government's failure to provide certain information relating to its Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 8 decision. Adding another to a line of decisions striking down the application of AFA in such circumstances, the court said Commerce has not shown why this information is necessary to verify that the CVD respondents, and their U.S. customers, did not use the program.