The Commerce Department properly held and explained that antidumping duty respondent Dongkuk S&C Co.'s reported steel plate costs do not reasonably reflect the cost of making wind towers in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 17 opinion. Judge Leo Gordon also held that Commerce properly used exporter SeAH Steel Holdings Corp.'s 2018 consolidated financial statement as the basis for constructed value calculations for Dongkuk's profit and selling expenses.

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 continued to rely on antidumping duty respondent Dillinger France's normal books and records as facts otherwise available to fill in missing cost of production data. Submitting remand results on Nov. 16 to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said that using Dillinger's normal books and records to value both prime and non-prime merchandise "is the only reasonable approach" since it recognizes that where Dillinger cannot make all its merchandise perfectly, the lost value of the imperfect products is actually a cost of making the perfect goods "and should be accounted for as such" (Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, CIT #17-00159)

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 16 released the public version of its Nov. 15 opinion dismissing a conflict-of-interest suit filed by plaintiffs led by Amsted Rail Company seeking to removeDaniel Pickard and his firm Buchanan Ingersoll from an International Trade Commission injury proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that while the court does have the jurisdiction to review the ITC's decision to grant Pickard and Buchanan access to business proprietary information (BPI), it does not have this jurisdiction under Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction. The judge left the door open for the plaintiffs to refile their case under Section 1581(c) "once a claim under" this provision "is ripe."

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision not to modify antidumping duty respondent Suzano's cost of production to exclude certain derivative expenses from the financial expense ratio in Nov. 14 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. The combination of Suzano's audited financial statements and quarterly earnings (QE) releases together show that the derivative losses are not extraordinary but instead represent financing expenses related to Suzano's normal operations and thus should not be excluded from the ratio, Commerce said (Suzano S.A. v. United States, CIT #21-00069).

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 15 judgment dismissed Amsted Rail's conflict-of-interest case against its former counsel for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Concurrently filing a confidential opinion but a public order, Judge Gary Katzmann said the plaintiffs can refile under Section 1581(c). The case was originally filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (Amsted Rail v. U.S., CIT #22-00307).

The Commerce Department stuck by its use of a simple average in the denominatory calculation of the Cohen's d coefficient -- a part of the test to root out "masked" dumping -- in Nov. 10 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Responding to an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit telling the agency to justify its departure from the academic literature about how to calculate the Cohen's d denominator, Commerce said that the literature actually supports the use of a simple average when sampling is not used (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, CIT Consol. #15-00213).

Russia will no longer be considered a market economy in antidumping duty investigations, which will likely cause future AD rates to rise for some Russian companies and rates to be set higher in AD duty orders issued for the country going forward.

The Court of International Trade does not have jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. Section 1581(i) -- the court's "residual" jurisdiction -- to hear a case over whether former counsel for Amsted Rail Co. should be barred from certain antidumping and countervailing proceedings, the U.S. told the court. Concurrently filing an opposition to ARC's motion for a preliminary injunction, which would bar ARC's former counsel, Daniel Pickard and law firm Buchanan Ingersoll, from participating in the proceedings, and a motion to dismiss, the U.S. said that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in the matter (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).

The Court of International Trade properly classified knit gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 7 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The heading provides for "[g]loves, mittens and mitts, knitted or crocheted" and is "sufficiently broad" to include knit gloves. The plaintiff-appellant, Magid Glove, puts forth a host of "inconsistent and unpersuasive arguments" to vie for classification under HTS heading 3926, which provides for "[o]ther articles of plastics," the brief said (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1793).