The Commerce Department "lawfully and reasonably" found that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) -- the U.S. affiliate for BlueScope Steel -- for antidumping duties on the relevant imports, the U.S. argued in a June 7 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Contrary to plaintiff U.S. Steel's contention, Commerce properly concluded that AIS's pricing arrangement wasn't evidence of reimbursement for the duties because the agency no longer deducts from U.S. price any indirect reimbursement of antidumping duties, the brief said (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT #21-00528).

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 altered the basis for its use of adverse facts available on remand at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping case after the court said that antidumping respondent Dalian Meisen Woodworking's false advertisements cannot be used as grounds for AFA. Submitting its remand results on June 6, Commerce said that after issuing a host of new questionnaires to Meisen, including a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification, it changed its bases for AFA, now basing it on the respondent's failure to provide "critical information" in the questionnaire and all of its U.S. affiliates (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT #20-00109).

The Commerce Department erred by finding that South Korea's provision of electricity below cost "conferred a non-measurable benefit," countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued in a June 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Nucor railed against the "evidentiary flaws" Commerce relied on from cost data from South Korea's sole supplier of electricity, the Korean Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), but said that even using this data, it's clear that a benefit was conferred to the mandatory respondents (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00137).

The Court of International Trade in a June 6 opinion dismissed test taker Byungmin Chae's lawsuit contesting five questions on the customs broker license exam. Judge Timothy Reif said CBP was right to dismiss Chae's appeal of four of the questions but that the agency wrongly denied the test taker's appeal for the fifth question. The reversal of one question wasn't enough to for a passing grade for Chae, who was two questions shy of the 75% threshold needed to pass the test.

Even if the Commerce Department finds that solar panels from Southeast Asia are circumventing antidumping and countervailing duty actions against Chinese exports, no AD/CVD will be collected for the next two years, the Biden administration announced on June 6. Trade lawyers were astonished by the action, which is based on the authority to temporarily suspend AD/CVD when imports are needed to respond to natural disasters "or other emergencies."

When it comes to the question of whether a countervailing duty respondent's U.S. customers used China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, "'No' means 'no,'" respondent Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. said in a June 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Yama said it fully answered whether this program was used by any of its customers and that should be enough for Commerce to verify non-use (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00402).

The Commerce Department cannot countervail Vietnam's currency devaluation practices, exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) (KTV) said in a May 25 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S.'s and the CVD petitioner's arguments to the contrary, particularly that currency devaluation is specific to exporters, ignore that Vietnamese exporters don't have to convert their U.S. dollar earnings into Vietnamese dong, the brief said (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) v. U.S., CIT #21-00397).

Defendant-appellees in an anti-circumvention case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit employ a "'pay no attention to what's behind the curtain' approach" as it relates to exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel's (AGIS) level of investment in the United Arab Emirates, AGIS argued in a June 1 brief. Replying to briefs from the U.S. and petitioner Steel Dynamics, AGIS said the appellees failed to show why enough evidence backs the Commerce Department's value-added calculations to justify the use of an unreasonable investment comparison methodology or to show that Commerce's disregard of numerous patterns of trade was reasonable (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1199).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a May 25 opinion found that shipments from two Alaskan shipping companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, do not qualify for an exception of the Jones Act. Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the shipments do not qualify for the Third Proviso of the Jones Act since they do not engage in transportation over a Canadian rail line.