When it comes to the question of whether a countervailing duty respondent's U.S. customers used China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, "'No' means 'no,'" respondent Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. said in a June 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Yama said it fully answered whether this program was used by any of its customers and that should be enough for Commerce to verify non-use (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00402).

The Commerce Department cannot countervail Vietnam's currency devaluation practices, exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) (KTV) said in a May 25 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S.'s and the CVD petitioner's arguments to the contrary, particularly that currency devaluation is specific to exporters, ignore that Vietnamese exporters don't have to convert their U.S. dollar earnings into Vietnamese dong, the brief said (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) v. U.S., CIT #21-00397).

Defendant-appellees in an anti-circumvention case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit employ a "'pay no attention to what's behind the curtain' approach" as it relates to exporter Al Ghurair Iron & Steel's (AGIS) level of investment in the United Arab Emirates, AGIS argued in a June 1 brief. Replying to briefs from the U.S. and petitioner Steel Dynamics, AGIS said the appellees failed to show why enough evidence backs the Commerce Department's value-added calculations to justify the use of an unreasonable investment comparison methodology or to show that Commerce's disregard of numerous patterns of trade was reasonable (Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1199).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a May 25 opinion found that shipments from two Alaskan shipping companies, Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management, do not qualify for an exception of the Jones Act. Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the shipments do not qualify for the Third Proviso of the Jones Act since they do not engage in transportation over a Canadian rail line.

Arguments from plaintiff-appellants in an antidumping duty case, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., are merely a bid to have the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit impermissibly re-weigh the record evidence over surrogate value questions, defendant-appellees Calgon Carbon Corp. and Norbit Americas argued in a May 31 reply brief. Also filing its reply brief was DOJ, arguing that the Commerce Department properly picked Malaysia over Romania as the primary surrogate country (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1298).

Plaintiff-appellants in a case challenging the termination of an antidumping duty suspension agreement filed a motion for a panel or full court rehearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the court found that the appellants made no plausible challenge to the termination. Appellants Bioparques de Occidente, Agricola La Primavera and Kaliroy said the court's decision was made "despite the absence of any briefing or arguments on the matter in this appeal," raising serious fairness and due process concerns (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2265).

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 again defended the use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to detect "masked" dumping in remand results filed on May 26 at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the court's order instructing the agency to address questions on the use of the test raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Commerce said that the appellate court's chief concern -- that the test as used by Commerce did not satisfy certain statistical criteria -- is not applicable in the present case (Marmen Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00169).

The Commerce Department failed to properly consider the "extremely disproportionate and prejudicial result" that stemmed from its decision to reject an untimely filing in an antidumping sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, three U.S. chemical companies argued in a May 31 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Commerce's "exceedingly narrow view" of what qualifies as an "extraordinary circumstance" isn't supported by the statute, evidence or the agency's own prior practice, given that Commerce said the U.S. companies' counsel's medical issues didn't qualify as such a circumstance, the brief said (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case and a countervailing duty case both brought by exporter Celik Halat after the agency accepted submissions made just minutes late. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld the agency's remand findings after Commerce accepted the submissions it initially rejected for being late -- a move dubbed a "draconian penalty" by Stanceu.