The Commerce Department must either conduct verification in an antidumping case, even if virtually, or more fully explain why it didn't conduct virtual verification in the face of a request to do so, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 2 decision. Judge Stephen Vaden expressed doubts over whether Commerce could complete the latter option, given that the agency failed to respond to the request for virtual verification. Commerce said no verification was conducted due to COVID-19-related restrictions. Vaden lambasted Commerce over this rationale given high-level U.S. officials' trips to India, the location of the would-be verification.

OtterBox filed a complaint with the Court of International Trade on Feb. 1, seeking to reclaim interest on tariffs it paid as part of prior disclosures on entries that have since been reclassified in its favor. Ottberbox argues that CBP has incorrectly withheld interest when returning overpayments after CIT ruled in OtterBox's favor in a tariff classification case on cellphone cases. The complaint accuses CBP of stalling in its obligation to “refund all duties overpaid, plus interest, as provided by law.”

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's request to re-review its decision to deny 15 exclusion requests from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, in a Feb. 1 order. Plaintiff NLMK Pennsylvania had consented to the request, even though Commerce's offer only covered 15 of the 54 total exclusion denial challenges made by NLMK. In its order, CIT did shorten the amount of time Commerce has to review the 15 cases from 150 days, as requested by the agency, to 106 days.

The Court of International Trade upheld for the second time the Commerce Department's decision that no benefit was conferred to South Korean steel companies through the provision of electricity. In a decision written on Jan. 21 but made public on Feb. 1, Judge Mark Barnett sustained Commerce's decision after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded it for unlawfully relying on price discrimination instead of a thorough fair-market principles evaluation. Barnett said Commerce has now addressed the Federal Circuit's concerns.

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 heard oral argument on Feb. 1 over whether lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 tariffs were properly imposed, marking one of the largest cases in the CIT's history. The hourslong affair saw the judges push back on arguments made by both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, with significant attention paid to the procedural elements of the president's decision to impose the retaliatory Section 301 tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. In all, the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves heard from the Department of Justice, counsel for the test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, and amici.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should deny defendant-appellant Wheatland Tube Company's bid to stay proceedings in an antidumping duty case related to use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value, because the appeals court is unlikely to overturn its own ruling against the judgment in a separate case Wheatland points to as the reason for the stay, plaintiff-appellees Husteel Co. and Hyundai Steel Company said in a Jan. 28 brief (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1300).

The massive Section 301 litigation that has inundated the U.S. Court of International Trade since the first cases were filed 16 months ago enters a critical new phase Feb. 1 when oral argument is scheduled for 10 a.m. EST before the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves. Virtually all the thousands of complaints seek to vacate the lists 3 and 4A tariffs on Chinese imports and get the duties paid refunded with interest on grounds that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its tariff-wielding authority under the 1974 Trade Act and violated protections in the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) against sloppy federal agency rulemakings.

CBP doesn't need to establish intent to defraud the U.S. in order to find an importer evaded antidumping and countervailing duties under the Enforce and Protect Act statute, CBP told the Court of International Trade in its Jan. 27 remand results. Continuing to find that Diamond Tools Technology (DTT) evaded the ADD/CVD order on diamond sawblades from China, CBP said that it only needs to show that DTT submitted false statements to prove evasion. This is in line with the purpose of the law, CBP said, since the purpose is to merely collect AD/CV duties owed to the U.S. (Diamond Tools Technology v. U.S., CIT #20-00060)

The Commerce Department can use adverse facts available over the Chinese government's failure to provide information on its electricity price-setting practices in a countervailing duty review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Jan. 28 opinion. Upholding a decision from the Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce's CV duties for the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) after the Chinese government failed to explain price variations across different provinces.