Building a rail line in Canada to take advantage of an exception to the Jones Act is "ordinarily permissible" under the law, logistics company Lineage Logistics Holdings said in a proposed amicus brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The Supreme Court of the U.S. said that liability cannot be imposed just because an individual or entity set up a transaction to avoid liability. Due to this holding, even if two shipping companies set up a Canadian rail line to avoid Jones Act penalties, it cannot then be held liable under the Jones Act, the brief said (Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC, et al. v. United States, D. Alaska #3:21-00198).

The Commerce Department didn't discredit its position on its ability to verify nonuse of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a recent countervailing duty review, the Department of Justice told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 brief. Responding to allegations from the lead plaintiff in a case over a CVD review, DOJ said that Commerce was able to verify nonuse -- despite key information from the Chinese government -- in a separate review due to the low number of the respondents' U.S. customers -- something that is not true of the review at issue.

The Commerce Department must reconsider whether antidumping duty respondent Power Steel paid Section 232 duties on all of its U.S. sales, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 23 opinion. Commerce, in an antidumping duty review, deducted Section 232 duties from all of Power Steel's U.S. sales when calculating export price. In her remand, Judge Jane Restani said sales invoices submitted by Power Steel may show it didn't pay Section 232 duties for some of its U.S. sales, so Commerce must take those into effect.

The Commerce Department failed to justify its reliance on a third-country company's financial statements for calculating constructed value in an antidumping duty review despite a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that called that reliance into question, the Court of International Trade said. Remanding Commerce's finding for the third time in a Dec. 22 opinion, Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce did not adequately distinguish the review from a case in which the company's financial statements were found to be unsuitable since there was evidence of a subsidy.

The Commerce Department found that importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges are not subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, in Dec. 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, though it did so under protest (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).

Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng said her government has filed notice that it is bringing a state-to-state dispute under USMCA over the increase in antidumping and countervailing duties on most Canadian softwood lumber exports. The Commerce Department issued the final results of the reviews in November (see 2112020026).

The Commerce Department continued to find in Dec. 21 remand results submitted to the Court of International trade that certain flanges are subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. Holding that the flanges from Crane Resistoflex have the physical characteristics described in the scope's first paragraph, the agency again defended its position that Crane's flanges are within the scope of the order. In line with CIT's instructions, though, Commerce also dropped its arguments defending its scope decision using the AD petition, ITC report and past scope determinations (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).

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 needs to reconsider its decision to deny an antidumping duty review respondent a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment related to the company's home market sales, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion. Seeing as the decision was based on a factual finding not backed by enough evidence and a second finding that is "vague and conclusory," Commerce needs to take another look at the issue, Judge Timothy Stanceu said.

The Commerce Department's decision to find affiliation between antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company and some of its Thai customers was not backed by enough evidence, the respondent argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Relying on information from the petitioner that is "vague and confusing" and not always connected to the merchandise under review, Commerce made an errant call, the complaint said. Further, the agency's decision to hit Saha Thai with partial adverse facts available based on its non-cooperation in the review was not supported by law, the company said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #21-00627).