The Court of International Trade in a May 23 opinion sent back CBP's decision finding that MSeafood Corp. did not evade antidumping duties by transshipping Indian frozen warmwater shrimp through Vietnam. Judge Claire Kelly said that CBP only reviewed part of the record in making the decision and failed to adequately follow its own regulations requiring public summaries of confidential information.

The Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations will not be allowed to intervene in GreenFirst Forest Products' case at the Court of International Trade contesting the Commerce Department's decision not to start a changed circumstances review. Per a May 20 opinion at CIT, Judge Claire Kelly said the coalition failed to show that it has a "direct, immediate, or legally protectable interest in this case" or that the U.S. will not adequately represent its interests.

The Court of International Trade ruled in a May 20 opinion that sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are "sales for export to the U.S." rather than "domestic sales," in a May 20 slip opinion by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. The opinion granted a Nov. 19 motion for summary judgment by DOJ (see 2111220057) that argued plaintiff Midwest-CBK's sales were exports to the U.S. at the time of sale (Midwest-CBK, LLC v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00154).

The Court of International Trade in a May 19 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case, finding that exporter Pirelli Tyre wasn't controlled by the Chinese state for the first 10 months of the AD review. Ten months into the review, Chinese company Chem China bought Pirelli, but Commerce originally held that Pirelli was owned by the Chinese government for the entire review. On remand, the agency said Chem China didn't own Pirelli for the first 10 months, giving the exporter a 1.45% dumping rate for this period.

The Commerce Department sufficiently backed its position that electricity subsidies in China were regionally specific, the Court of International Trade said in a May 19 opinion in a countervailing duty review challenge. Addressing the four other previously remanded elements of the review, Judge Jane Restani ultimately upheld Commerce's remand.

The Court of International Trade in a May 10 opinion made public May 17 sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett remanded Commerce's use of adverse facts available over plaintiff Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems' (HEES's) reporting of certain parts as not being in the scope of the order. The judge also upheld the use of AFA relating to Hyundai's reporting of service-related revenue and the completeness of its U.S. sales database.

The Court of International Trade dismissed two cases brought by steel importer Voestalpine USA and steel purchaser Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel seeking to retroactively apply a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion that was originally issued with a clerical error. Judge Mark Barnett said that the plaintiffs did not seek any relief that the court could grant since the entries eligible for the exclusion had already been liquidated, and the court does not have the power to order their reliquidation.

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 should deny the U.S.'s stay motion in a case over an antidumping duty investigation since the stay risks harming Mexican exporter Building Systems de Mexico, the company argued in a May 16 reply brief. Seeing as the appeal would have the plaintiff wait until another case is ruled on at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, staying proceedings in the present case could risk the imposition of an antidumping duty order, requiring BSM's payment of cash deposits and participation in "costly" administrative reviews, the brief said (Building Systems de Mexico v. United States, CIT #20-00069).

A federal magistrate judge at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in an order unsealed May 13 that the U.S. had probable cause to believe that an unnamed American citizen violated U.S. sanctions by using cryptocurrency to help various parties evade restrictions. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui ruled that virtual currency is traceable and that sanctions apply to virtual currency (In Re: Criminal Complaint, D.D.C. #22-00067).