CBP cannot rely on country trade patterns as specific evidence for evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties in Enforce and Protect Act proceedings, importer Skyview Cabinets USA argued in a Nov. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. CBP also erred by relying on statements from a corporate investigator, paid for by the alleger in the EAPA case, that are "inconsistent with the record." While Masterbrand tries to "downplay" facts presented by Skyview by using words such as "discrepancies, deficiencies, inconsistencies, and omissions," CBP never investigated any of these perceived discrepancies as required by law, Skyview said (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).

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.

CBP failed to provide public summaries of the confidential information in an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 28 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back parts and upheld parts of the EAPA finding, ultimately also remanding CBP's decision to retroactively cover entries made before the EAPA statute came into force and include merchandise found by the Commerce Department in a scope ruling to not be covered by the order.

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 28 blocked imports of certain fish taken from New Zealand's West Coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. In an opinion that cited renowned conservationist Rachel Carson, Judge Gary Katzmann found plaintiffs are likely to succeed in arguing two claims in the case seeking a Marine Mammal Protection Act ban on imports of fish and fishery products from New Zealand and caught using techniques that have caused the near extinction of the Maui dolphin, warranting the injunction. The injunction covers snapper, tarakihi, spotted dogfish, trevally, warehou, hoki, barracouta, mullet and gurnard from the New Zealand set-net and trawl fisheries.

An amended complaint in a conflict-of-interest case does not cure the fundamental deficiencies of the suit, the U.S. argued in a second motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade. While the amended complaint included specific examples of alleged ethical violations committed by plaintiff Amsted Rail Co.'s former counsel and a declaration from an ethics expert, the case still suffers from a lack of jurisdiction, the government said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00316).

The Court of International Trade erred by upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, defendant-appellant Wheatland Tube Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Commerce's original scope ruling including dual-stenciled pipe was backed by evidence since the pipe met the physical characteristics laid out in the scope of the order "and was made to an industrial specification for standard pipe" (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Nov. 23 order denied plaintiff-appellee Hitachi Energy USA's motion for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in an antidumping duty case. In a May opinion, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available on respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. over its reporting of service-related revenue. The court said Hyundai had the right to supplement the record and that Commerce can't claim the company shirked its obligations in the review (see 2205240028) (Hitachi Energy USA v. United States, Fed. Cir. #20-2114).

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.

Plaintiffs in a conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade, led by Amsted Rail Co., amended their complaint after a similar case of theirs against the International Trade Commission was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The amended complaint added a specific alleged instance in which ARC gave its former counsel, Daniel Pickard, now of Buchanan Ingersoll, information that is now being used against it in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00316).

CBP in a Nov. 21 remand submission to the Court of International Trade continued to find that MSeafood Corporation did not evade antidumping duties by transshipping Indian shrimp through Vietnam. The agency said it believes it complied with the trade court's remand order by having CBP's Trade Remedy & Law Enforcement Directorate transmit all documents that were "inadvertently omitted" from the record to the agency's Office of Regulations and Rulings, and placing a revised public version of business confidential information (BC) on the record (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00129).