The Commerce Department unlawfully expanded the scope of the antidumping duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Mexico when it found that Mexican exporter Deacero circumvented the order, the company argued in a Dec. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Deacero said Commerce erred in failing to address the company's claims that the agency and the International Trade Commission originally meant to exclude high-carbon steel wire from the scope of the order (Deacero v. U.S., CIT # 24-00212).

Exporter Pipe and Piling Supplies brought a complaint Dec. 27 against the Commerce Department’s administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada. The exporter, sole mandatory respondent for the review, disagreed with the department's application of total adverse facts available for the review, saying it cooperated to the best of its ability (Pipe and Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).

The World Trade Organization released an updated draft of its dispute settlement reform text, outlining a host of reform ideas regarding the appeal mechanism's scope of review, standard of review, form, incentives to appeal, expectations from members and accessibility.

Aluminum extrusions exporter Kingtom Aluminio, which operates out of the Dominican Republic, brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on Dec. 23 to challenge CBP’s finding that the exporter had used forced labor (Kingtom Aluminio v. U.S., CIT # 24-00264).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 26 upheld the Commerce Department's finding that Germany's Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) program, which exempts from a fee gas and power pipeline companies that sell electricity below a certain price, isn't de facto specific and so isn't countervailable. Judge Claire Kelly approved Commerce's use of facts otherwise available to find "the recipients were too numerous to render" the program de facto specific.

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.

In a 18,700-word opposition brief, the U.S. attempted to derail a full-throttle attack brought by importers Wabtec Corp. and Strato against the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury finding for freight rail couplers from China (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).

Tire exporter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations filed a 10-count complaint at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 23, challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the company in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).

The U.S. Dec. 16 supported its motion to dismiss the amended complaint of aluminum rod importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, saying that the importer’s arguments failed to state a claim, aren’t subject to the “continuing violation doctrine” and don’t have a six-year statute of limitations (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) improperly rejected 63 Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests filed by California-based importer Mirror Metals, the company argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Mirror Metals said that if BIS applied the standards laid out in its regulations, the "only reasonable conclusion" it could have drawn was that the company "cannot obtain the subject steel in the U.S. market in a sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00260).