The Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 25 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a recent and highly anticipated opinion ruled that CBP cannot consider a country's non-market economy status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). The case, brought by importer Meyer Corp., now heads back to the Court of International Trade, which will hear arguments over how to appraise cookware imported by Meyer. John Peterson, counsel for Meyer, told Trade Law Daily that he is considering two options when the case gets back to the trade court: seek a retrial or mediation.

The Commerce Department stuck by its positions in an antidumping duty review, in Aug. 23 remand results. The agency further explained its selection of India as the primary surrogate country and its analysis of respondent NTSF Seafoods' reporting of the company's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of the fillets (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT #20-00105).

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 unlawfully used an alternate method for calculating normal value in an antidumping duty review on goods from China, respondent Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products argued in an Aug. 22 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The exporter argued Commerce illegally based normal value on the price at which the subject merchandise, square tubes, is sold in other countries, rather than base normal value on the quantity of raw materials used to make the square tubes (Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00116).

A U.S.-based shipper said a Taiwanese container shipping company violated Shipping Act regulations when it failed to supply agreed upon cargo capacity. MSRF, based in Illinois, said Yang Ming Transport “refused to provide more than a fraction of the cargo capacity that MSRF requested and needed” and violated the terms of their contract, forcing MSRF to buy cargo space on the “inflated” spot market. In an August complaint filed to the Federal Maritime Commission, MSRF said the FMC should investigate Yang Ming’s practices and order the container shipping company to pay “reparations.”

The Commerce Department erred in rejecting food and vegetable processing giant Seneca Foods Corporation's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, Seneca argued in an Aug. 19 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The vegetable canning company said that Commerce violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to meaningfully consider and explain its rejection of the exclusion requests (Seneca Foods Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00243).

The Commerce Department should accept an exporter's evidence of entries to establish a separate rate in an antidumping duty case, or else conclude that it had no shipments and not review the company, the exporter, Ningbo Qixin, argued in an Aug. 18 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Canadian Solar International, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling to overturn a Court of International Trade decision that called into question the use of first sale treatment for imported goods involving non-market economy countries (see 2208110060) is largely seen as providing a welcome relief to importers, several law firms said. "For those importers enjoying the benefits of lower declared values and duties, particularly from China in light of Section 301 tariffs, there is no longer a need for concern now that, on appeal, the court has given first sale a nod," Sandler Travis lawyer Lenny Feldman said on a podcast. The original CIT decision (Meyer Corporation v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1392) raised some concerns for the future of first sale treatment (see 2104200028).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 18 upheld the Commerce Department’s decision to apply facts available to production costs for a French steel plate exporter unable to distinguish between costs for its prime and non-prime merchandise, but again remanded the agency’s determination to use sales prices as a stand-in.