The Comfy, a wearable blanket imported by the Cozy Comfort Company, should be classified as a blanket rather than a pullover, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 complaint. Due to its Sherpa interior lining and function as a blanket, The Comfy should be classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading for a blanket, the complaint said (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT #21-00404).

Since antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries served as a mandatory respondent in five consecutive ADD reviews, the Commerce Department reasonably found that the company did not act to the best of its ability by not being entirely forthcoming in its reporting of the gross unit prices for its home market sales, ADD review petitioner ABB Enterprise said. Responding to Hyundai's arguments in its case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 24 brief, ABB said that Hyundai's reporting error was the result of "carelessness and inattentiveness" while preparing its data. For this reason, the imposition of total adverse facts available is appropriate, ABB said (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems v. United States, Fed Cir. #21-2312).

The Commerce Department's decision to compare two foreign manufacturers' production processes with integrated steel mills from China was unreasonable, Bruneian company HLDS (B) Steel and Philippine company HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 24 complaint. Such a comparison -- used in a recent anti-circumvention inquiry -- was unreasonable since integrated steel mills make primary steel in many forms, not just oil country tubular goods -- the merchandise subject to the anti-circumvention inquiry, the complaint said (HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, CIT #21-00638).

The Commerce Department violated the law when it found antidumping duty respondent Papierfabrik August Kohler's Blue4est developer-free paper to be within the scope of the AD duty order on thermal paper from Germany, the respondent told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 21 complaint. Commerce, in its preliminary determination, found the Blue4est paper to be outside of the scope of the order but changed its decision in the final results. This decision wasn't based on a change in evidence but rather a "conclusory decision to ignore the limited scope of the term 'thermal paper' as defined in the petition," the respondent said (Koehler Paper SE v. U.S., CIT #21-00633).

The Court of International Trade denied defendant-intervenors California Steel Industries' and Welspun Tubular's bid to stay an antidumping duty case concerning a particular market situation adjustment to a respondent's cost of production for the sales-below-cost test, in a Jan. 21 order. Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit already ruled against the practice, Judge Claire Kelly said she couldn't be sure a stay would do anything more than just delay the proceedings of the case.

Contrary to the Jan. 10 notice of supplemental authorities from Section 301 test case lawyers Akin Gump that two recent Court of International Trade decisions bolster their arguments that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative violated the 1974 Trade Act and 1946 Administrative Procedure Act when it imposed the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports (see 2201110009), “neither decision is ‘pertinent’ nor ‘significant’ to plaintiffs’ claims,” the Department of Justice responded Jan. 20 in a letter. Section 307 of the Trade Act “unambiguously supports that the word ‘modify’ permits an increase in tariffs,” as the government contends in the Section 301 case, DOJ said. “To imply a limitation permitting only a decrease in tariffs would be inconsistent” with Section 307, “and would require adding language that Congress omitted” in the statute, it said. The APA issues discussed in a second decision, Invenergy Renewables LLC v. United States, in which the court found USTR violated the statute by not addressing “significant comments” raised by the public, “are easily distinguishable from this case,” DOJ said. The significant comments that the court determined were unaddressed in Invenergy “concerned the USTR’s authority to withdraw a previously-granted exclusion,” plus “other statutory considerations,” it said. In the Section 301 case, USTR “plainly addressed its statutory authority for issuing List 3 and List 4 and the objective of eliminating China’s unfair trade practices,” it said. “We respectfully submit” that neither decision “constitutes persuasive authority that supports granting judgment for the plaintiffs,” DOJ said. Oral argument is scheduled for Feb. 1.

The COVID-19 pandemic did not give the Commerce Department cover to ignore its statutory obligation to conduct on-site verification in antidumping duty proceedings, the plaintiffs in an ADD case told the Court of International Trade in a Jan. 19 brief. Responding to the Department of Justice's defense of its decision to send an additional questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification, the plaintiffs, led by Ellwood City Forge Company, said that DOJ's position is not entitled to Chevron deference and that the pandemic did not justify violating the statute (Ellwood City Forge Company v. U.S., CIT #21-00077).

An importer needs to file a protest to claim jurisdiction at the Court of International Trade over protestable CBP decisions, and that includes CBP's assessment of Section 301 tariffs on goods subsequently granted a tariff exclusion, the Department of Justice said in a Jan. 18 brief. DOJ urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold CIT's decision dismissing a lawsuit from ARP Materials and Harrison Steel seeking refunds of the duties, arguing CIT's "residual" jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) does not apply, since the plaintiff-appellants had adequate notice of CBP's actions and actually received Section 301 refunds for some of their entries (see 2109280061) (ARP Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2176).

The Court of International Trade improperly applied the "dual burden of proof" when it denied Meyer Corp. "first sale" valuation on its imports of cookware, Meyer told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 10 reply brief. The dual burden of proof practice was previously eliminated, so CIT improperly applied this standard when it denied Meyer first sale but sustained CBP's valuation of the imports based on their second sale rate, Meyer said (Meyer Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932). "Despite its prodigious length (120 pages), the CIT's opinion consists mainly of a recitation of the parties' proposed post-trial findings and contains very little by way of legal analysis," the company said.

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.