The Court of International Trade in an April 14 opinion denied steel company SSAB Enterprises the right to intervene in a challenge to a countervailing duty review. Although the company requested the Commerce Department open the review, it "sat on the sidelines" during the proceeding, Judge M. Miller Baker said in the opinion. "Commerce's regulations ... require that a would-be litigant do more than just show up."

The Commerce Department's decision not to grant exporter Ningbo Qixin a separate rate in an antidumping duty matter for not having any sales during the period of review "is logically inconsistent" since the agency is supposed to then rescind the antidumping review, the exporter told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an April 12 opening brief. Ningbo Qixin also argued that the Court of International Trade improperly denied the appellant's motion to file new factual information out of time since "extenuating circumstances" warranted another shot to submit the information (Canadian Solar, et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2162).

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 an April 4 opinion made public April 12, sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly upheld Commerce's pick of Malaysia as the primary surrogate country and the calculation of surrogate financial ratios. However, the judge remanded Commerce's decision to value silver paste using Malaysian import data, value mandatory respondent Risen Energy Co.'s ethyl vinyl acetate and backsheet, and use partial adverse facts available to value missing factor of production data, as well as the conduct of its separate rate calculation.

The Commerce Department tapped a new third-country company's financial statement to use for surrogate values in an antidumping duty review after the Court of International Trade remanded its decision for a third time. Submitting its remand results to CIT on April 12, the agency halved mandatory respondent Oman Fasteners' dumping margin from 9.10% to 4.22% (Mid Continent Steel & Wire Inc. v. United States, CIT Consol. #15-00214).

The Commerce Department's conclusion that Dominican manufacturer Kingtom Aluminio had exports subject to the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China based on CBP's Enforce and Protect Act investigation is an "abdication of its legal responsibility" to conduct administrative reviews, Kingtom said in an April 8 complaint. Taking its grievance to the Court of International Trade, Kingtom also said that the decision to find that the exporter had goods subject to the AD order based on adverse facts available is a due process violation (Kingtom Aluminio v. U.S., CIT #22-00072 to -00079).

Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, had to file a protest to properly establish jurisdiction to challenge the liquidation of its entries, DOJ argued in an April 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to SIS's arguments that there was nothing to protest at the time since the countervailing duty rate was not final, DOJ said that this position is incorrect since the importer should have moved to suspend liquidation during the CVD review. Failing to do so precluded the ability to judicially challenge the liquidations, the brief said (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1161).

The Commerce Department granted a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment for antidumping duty respondent Productos Laminados de Monterrey (Prolamsa) on remand at the Court of International Trade, reversing course from its previous position. Finding that the totality of evidence supports the position that Prolamsa made sales at two levels of trade, Commerce dropped Prolamsa's dumping rate from 7.47% to 0.89% (Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT #20-00166).

Three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit probed the question of whether a group of U.S. steel companies, led by U.S. Steel Corp., could intervene in a spate of cases challenging the Commerce Department's decision to deny certain importers exclusions to Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. During an April 7 oral argument, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and Judges Pauline Newman and Todd Hughes expressed serious doubt as to whether the steel companies could join the exclusion challenges (California Steel Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit signaled during an April 6 oral argument that whether a country is a non-market economy would not stand as a criterion in determining whether to grant an import first sale valuation. Responding to arguments from John Peterson, counsel for importer and plaintiff Meyer Corp. and Beverly Farrell of DOJ, three Federal Circuit judges -- Judge Todd Hughes in particular -- said that it was unlikely the government would succeed in defending the use of this criterion in customs law, as non-market economy principle is reserved for trade remedy laws (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1932).