Despite sales terms to the contrary, a Hong Kong middleman never held title to merchandise imported from China and Taiwan into the U.S., so “first sale” valuation is unavailable and the goods should be valued at the price paid by the importer, CBP said in a recent ruling. Incoterms aside, the importer paid for freight and insurance, and title transferred alongside risk of loss directly from the manufacturer to the importer, with the middleman acting more as agent, CBP said in HQ H316892.

The Commerce Department must provide further explanation for, and if needed, reconsider its finding as to whether the "likely selling price" of non-prime plate set in antidumping respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books is the best available information for evaluating the cost of production, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 23 opinion. Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in a "parallel matter" instructing Commerce to find the actual cost of production for prime and non-prime cut-to-length plate, Judge Leo Gordon sent back Commerce's reliance on Dillinger's "likely selling price" of non-prime plate.

The Commerce Department properly hit antidumping respondent Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial with total adverse facts available for its failure to report all of its factors of production data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Sept. 23 opinion. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman and Kara Stoll ruled that the CONNUM-specific reporting requirement is an interpretive rule and not a legislative one requiring a notice-and-comment period, and found Pioneer failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by not maintaining adequate records and not developing a proper reporting methodology.

Mandatory antidumping respondent Dong-A Steel Co. can intervene in a challenge to an antidumping review brought by the review's other mandatory respondent HiSteel Co., the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 22 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann said that Dong-A has "piggyback standing" to intervene since it and HiSteel seek the same relief, and that the exporter can intervene "as of right" since it is "an interested party who was a party to the proceeding."

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 22 opinion denied plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's motion to stay its countervailing duty review challenge pending resolution of a case over the previous review of the same CVD order. Judge Gary Katzmann said the stay would not promote judicial economy since the pending cases are before CIT and not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and that Kaptan has not put forth any "pressing need" for a stay. The judge commented on the lack of any "talismanic formula" for finding when a stay motion should be granted and the need to weigh the various conditions at play.

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 did not properly explain why it was appropriate to inflate a Mexican labor wage rate using Brazilian data in an antidumping duty investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 13 opinion, made public Sept. 21. Commerce requested a voluntary remand in the case to further explain its decision, since it admitted to the court that it did not explain this position. Judge M. Miller Baker also sent the case back so the agency can identify the evidence in the record that supports granting Guangzhou Ulix Industrial & Trading Co. a separate rate.

The U.S. cannot seize or forfeit imports that are federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" but whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal at the state level, the Court of International Trade ruled Sept. 21. Judge Gary Katzmann found Washington state's move to make the marijuana-related drug paraphernalia legal allows interested parties to import the paraphernalia under the federal exemption laid out in the Controlled Substances Act.

The U.S. was wrong to argue that the Commerce Department does not need to satisfy any criteria when refusing to start a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review, plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products argued in a Sept. 19 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government ignored that both Commerce and the trade court have recognized the agency's practice of looking at whether the agency individually calculated the former company's subsidy rate to deny the successor-in-interest CCR, the plaintiff said (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 20 order denied a motion from John Liu and GL Paper Distribution, defendants in a Section 592 penalty case, to strike a portion of the complaint. Liu moved to toss elements of the complaint he deemed to not be relevant to the imports at issue. Judge Jane Restani ruled that striking these parts of the complaint would be "premature," since the matter of relevancy is a "question of evidence" and not meant to be subject to a motion to strike.