The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit owes no deference to CBP's procedures in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion investigation since those procedures violated importer Royal Brush Manufacturing's due process rights, the importer argued in a June 30 reply brief. Royal Brush also argued that CBP's decision to not give the importer access to business confidential information in the Enforce and Protect Act proceeding is a problem of CBP's own creation, and that the U.S. offers insufficient defenses of the company's constitutional due process claims (Royal Brush Manufacturing Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina will allow shipping company Planet Nine Private Air's counterclaims of fraud, fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation to proceed, denying We CBD's motion to dismiss them, in a June 28 opinion (We CBD v. Planet Nine Private Air, W.D.N.C. #21-00352).

The Commerce Department erred by finding that Krakatau POSCO -- a joint venture between a private South Korean steel company and an Indonesian government-owned firm -- was not a government authority, leading Commerce to find its provision of cut-to-length steel plate below cost was not countervailable, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition said. Arguing against the U.S. and exporter Kenertec Power System, the coalition said in a June 29 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that by making its decision, the agency "elevated form over substance, frustrated the intent of the CVD law, and allowed Indonesia's wind tower producer to receive subsidies and escape duties" (PT. Kenertec Power System v. U.S., CIT Consol. #20-03687).

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York should issue an injunction against One Banana North America Corp. from seeking arbitration in New York over claims that cargo company MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. damaged banana shipments, MSC said in a June 27 complaint. The shipping company said that the terms of the contract between MSC and One Banana clearly stipulate that cargo claims can only be litigated before the Southern District of New York (MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. v. One Banana North America Corp., S.D.N.Y. #22-05425).

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.

Antidumping duty petitioner Wheatland Tube Co. wants one of its appeals of an antidumping duty case over whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test dismissed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but says one other appeal should be kept alive. Filing a motion for voluntary dismissal, Wheatland said that its case was held in abeyance pending an appeal of the key case, Hyundai Steel Co v. U.S., to the Supreme Court, in which the Federal Circuit said that Commerce cannot make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039). Since no writ of certiorari was filed to the nation's highest court by Wheatland in the Hyundai Steel case, the court should toss the present appeal, the petitioner argued.

Importer Prime Time Commerce failed to exhaust its administrative remedies for its argument that the Commerce Department should look to confidential information to provide "gap-filling" data needed to calculate a rate separate from the China-wide dumping margin for the importer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a June 28 opinion. Sustaining the Court of International Trade, Judges Alan Lourie, Haldane Mayer and Tiffany Cunningham also ruled that while CIT and Commerce erred in not accepting Prime Time's submissions since it is an "interested party," the error was a harmless one.

The Court of International Trade has the authority to order the Labor Department to certify that former AT&T call center employees are eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits, the former employees said in a June 23 brief. Responding to the court's request for further briefing on the issue of the court's authority, the plaintiffs said that the statutory text, purpose, history and practice all reveal that the court has doled out similar relief in the past and that the trade court can indeed issue the posited relief despite the lack of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Former Employees of AT&T Services, Through Communications Workers of America Local 4123 v. United States, CIT #20-00075).

Plaintiffs in a countervailing duty case railed against the Commerce Department's reliance on adverse facts available over the CVD respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, filing a series of four separate briefs at the Court of International Trade. The plaintiffs, led by nonselected respondent Evolutions Flooring, argued that the use of AFA over the EBCP has been "consistently rejected under almost identical factual circumstances," and that Commerce was able to verify non-use of the program without certain information in a different CVD case (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT #21-00591).

The Court of International Trade in a June 24 opinion denied plaintiff Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps' move to amend its complaint in an Enforce and Protect Act evasion case to explicitly contest CBP's denial of its protests over the xanthan gum entries subject to the EAPA decision. Judge Gary Katzmann said that the motion was clearly untimely and futile, and found that the delay in filing the amended complaint was undue and that the plaintiff still fails to identify the protests it is contesting.