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 correctly held that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 does not require CBP to distribute interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. argued in a pair of reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Hilex Poly Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2106) (Adee Honey Farms v. U.S, Fed. Cir. #22-2105).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 13 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's decision to find that exporter Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co.'s tires do not qualify for an exclusion to the antidumping duty order on light truck spare tires despite the petitioner originally agreeing to include specific exclusion language for Cheng Shin's tires. Judge Stephen Vaden said that it is not his job "to save Cheng Shin from itself," given that the negotiated exclusion required that the tires must be "designed and marketed exclusively" as temporary-use light truck tires, and Cheng Shin submitted evidence showing that its tires were not exclusively designed and marketed as such.

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a government counterclaim that its boronized steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs or alterations, are unfinished steel tubes subject to Section 301 tariffs, Maple Leaf Marketing argued in a Feb. 10 brief. The counterclaim runs against the principle of finality of liquidation, the importer said (Maple Leaf Marketing v. U.S., CIT # 20-03839).

The Commerce Department should have considered antidumping duty respondent Antique Marbonite's untimely filed extension request, which led to the rejection of its second supplemental questionnaire, since extraordinary circumstances warranted a retroactive extension of the deadline, three importers argued in a Feb. 10 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce also erred by failing to afford the plaintiff its "second chance" opportunity, given that Antique intended to meet the deadline and "promptly" told the agency it needed an extension "when it realized that it [had] not done so," plaintiffs Arizona Tile, M S International and PNS Clearance claimed (Arizona Tile v. United States, CIT # 23-00019).

The Commerce Department erred in calculating the non-selected rate in a quartz surface products antidumping duty review, AD petitioner Cambria Co. argued in a Feb. 10 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Cambria seeks to have Commerce return to a simple average rate calculated based on zero and adverse facts available rates in the preliminary results of the review, instead of the 3.19% mark from the final results that was taken from the all-others rate in the original AD investigation (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).

The Commerce Department must reconsider its benefit determination on the South Korean government's provision of port usage rights to countervailing duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co., the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 10 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that Commerce failed to consider information relating to prevailing market conditions, such as price, quality and other conditions of the purchase or sale, when deciding whether a benefit was conferred. Choe-Groves also granted Commerce's voluntary remand request on sewerage usage fees after it said it learned more about the program.

Meyer Corp.'s imports of cookware do not qualify for first-sale treatment, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 9 opinion. After ruling against Meyer's bid for a retrial in the opinion, Judge Thomas Aquilino said that, because the court doesn't know the extent to which parent company Meyer Holdings had the ability to influence the price paid for the goods sold between affiliates, due to the company's failure to submit its financial information, the use of first sale was not supported.

The Commerce Department failed to explain how its policy of presuming that exporters from non-market economies (NMEs) are controlled by the state and thus deserving of a single NME-wide antidumping rate is rooted in either the statute or Commerce's regulations, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Feb. 9 opinion. Remanding the case over questions on the policy's legal origins for a second time, Judge Richard Eaton also called into question how the NME presumption policy weighs against Commerce's legal obligation to calculate an individual rate for a mandatory respondent using its own data.

The Court of International Trade erred by relying on information not presented to the Commerce Department in a scope case, misinterpreting the International Trade Commission's findings in the original injury proceeding and mischaracterizing statements in other ITC cases, appellant Wheatland Tube Co. argued in a Feb. 3 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe's arguments supporting the CIT's analysis "are unpersuasive," since they ignore the plain language of the relevant antidumping duty order, the brief said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).