A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reconsider its wrongfully decided opinion finding that the Commerce Department cannot make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping duty proceedings, three defendant-appellants told the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 2 brief. Seeking a full court hearing, Atlas Tube, Searing Industries and Nucor Tubular Products said that the decision violates D.C. Circuit precedents over the "operation of ordinary canons of statutory construction in the administrative law context," and the Federal Circuit's precedents over deference afforded to Commerce (Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2153).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed a federal district court's decision to dismiss a challenge to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's enforcement of a federal gasoline-volatility regulation on a duty-free gas station on the Canadian border. The regulation applies to Ammex's gas station, even though the gas station sells gas only for export because cars must drive into Canada after filling up, the appeals court said (Ammex v. Gary McDowell, 6th Cir. #20-1250).

OtterBox filed a complaint with the Court of International Trade on Feb. 1, seeking to reclaim interest on tariffs it paid as part of prior disclosures on entries that have since been reclassified in its favor. Ottberbox argues that CBP has incorrectly withheld interest when returning overpayments after CIT ruled in OtterBox's favor in a tariff classification case on cellphone cases. The complaint accuses CBP of stalling in its obligation to “refund all duties overpaid, plus interest, as provided by law.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hopes to be able to support the House China package, since the trade group supported the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, but said the House bill "continues to include numerous policies that would undermine U.S. competitiveness, and Members are being denied the opportunity to vote on amendments to address these issues." The Chamber said it will push during the conference process to get better bill.

The Commerce Department must either conduct verification in an antidumping case, even if virtually, or more fully explain why it didn't conduct virtual verification in the face of a request to do so, the Court of International Trade said in a Feb. 2 decision. Judge Stephen Vaden expressed doubts over whether Commerce could complete the latter option, given that the agency failed to respond to the request for virtual verification. Commerce said no verification was conducted due to COVID-19-related restrictions. Vaden lambasted Commerce over this rationale given high-level U.S. officials' trips to India, the location of the would-be verification.

The Court of International Trade upheld for the second time the Commerce Department's decision that no benefit was conferred to South Korean steel companies through the provision of electricity. In a decision written on Jan. 21 but made public on Feb. 1, Judge Mark Barnett sustained Commerce's decision after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded it for unlawfully relying on price discrimination instead of a thorough fair-market principles evaluation. Barnett said Commerce has now addressed the Federal Circuit's concerns.

The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's request to re-review its decision to deny 15 exclusion requests from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, in a Feb. 1 order. Plaintiff NLMK Pennsylvania had consented to the request, even though Commerce's offer only covered 15 of the 54 total exclusion denial challenges made by NLMK. In its order, CIT did shorten the amount of time Commerce has to review the 15 cases from 150 days, as requested by the agency, to 106 days.

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 heard oral argument on Feb. 1 over whether lists 3 and 4A of Section 301 tariffs were properly imposed, marking one of the largest cases in the CIT's history. The hourslong affair saw the judges push back on arguments made by both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, with significant attention paid to the procedural elements of the president's decision to impose the retaliatory Section 301 tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. In all, the three-judge panel of Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly and Jennifer Choe-Groves heard from the Department of Justice, counsel for the test case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, and amici.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should deny defendant-appellant Wheatland Tube Company's bid to stay proceedings in an antidumping duty case related to use of a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value, because the appeals court is unlikely to overturn its own ruling against the judgment in a separate case Wheatland points to as the reason for the stay, plaintiff-appellees Husteel Co. and Hyundai Steel Company said in a Jan. 28 brief (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1300).