Importer Valeo North America's lawsuit seeking to compel the Commerce Department to issue a scope ruling should not be dismissed because, though Commerce did eventually issue a scope ruling, the ruling was not lawful, the company argued in a Nov. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Though Commerce argued that the scope ruling means CIT no longer has jurisdiction over Valeo's case, the importer says that scope ruling was invalid because it did not follow the framework set by Commerce's scope regulations (Valeo North America, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00426).

The Commerce Department continued to find the all-others rate in an antidumping investigation by averaging a respondent's zero percent margin and the large China-wide adverse facts available rate, despite the most recent Court of International Trade opinion ruling against this position. Submitting its fourth remand results to CIT, Commerce said that it had to stick with this method for finding the all-others rate due to the scarcity and inadequacy of the alternatives (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00002).

The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade presiding over the Section 301 litigation scheduled oral argument in the HMTX Industries-Jasco Products sample case for Feb. 1, 2022, at 10 a.m. in the court's Ceremonial Courtroom in New York, an order entered Nov. 12 in master case docket 21-cv-52 said. Chief Judge Mark Barnett had asked lawyers from both sides at a virtual status conference Nov.10 to email the court by Nov. 12 about schedule conflicts they had in January and February.

The Commerce Department denied a group of domestic solar panel manufacturers' bid to remain anonymous in their requests for anti-circumvention inquiries on solar cells from Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand, denying the requests while noting that the manufacturers may revive the requests if they agree to make their identities public. In a letter sent Nov. 10, Commerce said anonymous treatment is "unwarranted" and that the company's names should be publicly disclosed if the anti-circumvention inquiries are to proceed.

The Court of International Trade "created a paradox" when ruling that CBP's seizure of alleged drug paraphernalia is not an admissibility determination, while at the same time finding that the seizure prevents a deemed exclusion of the merchandise, importer Root Sciences said in a Nov. 8 brief. Looking to get CIT to reconsider a previous ruling that found that the court didn't have jurisdiction over cases in which CBP seized goods, Root said CIT's ruling has caused it to be "cast into a jurisdictional wilderness" (Root Sciences, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00123).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Hyundai Steel Co. attempted to explain away an attack from antidumping petitioner U.S. Steel that it has a "troubling history" on a key issue in the AD review, in a Nov. 8 brief submitted to the Court of International Trade. Asserting that its prior positions are irrelevant to the issue at hand, Hyundai characterized U.S. Steel's attacks as "without merit," arguing instead that its "perceived deficiency" in certain data fields can be easily explained to Commerce (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00099).

The Commerce Department did not abuse its discretion when it denied a group of domestic chloropicrin producers' bid to retroactively extend a filing deadline, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 8 opinion. Not buying the plaintiffs' excuses that the deadline was missed due to a combination of technical and medical issues, Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld Commerce's rejection of the extension requests following revocation of the relevant AD duty order because of the missed deadline.

CBP did not violate importer Diamond Tools Technology's due process rights when it found that the company evaded antidumping duties on diamond sawblades from China, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 29 opinion, made public Nov. 5. However, Judge Timothy Reif did remand the case to CBP, finding that the actual finding of evasion was not supported as there was no "material and false statement" made by DTT. The judge also upheld CBP's authority to find that DTT's entries that pre-dated the start date of a related anti-circumvention inquiry are "covered merchandise."

After two failed attempts to prove that subsidies provided by the government of Spain to olive growers are de jure specific, the Commerce Department now asserts that the subsidies are de facto specific, in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade Nov. 3. While still disagreeing with the trade court's finding that the subsidies are not de jure specific to olive growers, Commerce nevertheless backed down and now argues for de facto specificity instead. Because the Spanish government purportedly failed to submit the information Commerce needed to hold de facto specificity on remand, the agency relied on facts otherwise available to derive the proposed countervailing duty rate.