That an antidumping review respondent lied in its advertisements about what its goods were made of does not warrant the application of adverse facts available, the Court of International Trade said in a Nov. 18 decision. Judge Miller Baker said that while the respondent's advertising in the U.S. is a "complete fraud from bark to core," the Commerce Department must derive the company's dumping rate from its actual costs. The judge also held that Commerce does not have the jurisdiction to "police false advertising violations" under its antidumping laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed a federal district court's ruling which tossed a case seeking payment from the U.S. over damages caused from a ship delay in Delaware, holding that the district court could in fact hear the case. The appellate court, in a Nov. 16 decision, said that the court had jurisdiction since the contract between the U.S. and ship owner Nederland Shipping Corporation was a maritime contract and the law giving the U.S. cover for detaining the ship waived sovereign immunity (Nederland Shipping Corporation, et al. v. United States, 3rd Cir. #20-2269).

The Supreme Court of the U.S. may hear an appeal of the key Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States decision, seeing it as an opportunity to discuss the question of the extent to which Congress delegated tariff powers to the president, Julie Mendoza of Morris Manning, counsel to plaintiff-appellee Borusan Mannesmann, told Trade Law Daily. Having recently petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case, Mendoza said that having the case sit in front of the nation's highest court will also give her and her team a chance to argue that the most recent decision in the case runs afoul of the intelligible principle standard for delegation of powers to the president as it relates to Section 232.

The Court of International Trade again struck down the Trump administration's withdrawal of an exclusion from the Section 201 solar safeguard measures for bifacial solar panels, in its second opinion rejecting Trump administration's elimination of the exclusion as many days. Judge Gary Katzmann found that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's exclusion withdrawal was an "arbitrary and capricious agency decision" and represented a move with no statutory authority. Just a day earlier, Katzmann ruled against a presidential proclamation attempting to withdraw the bifacial panel exclusion, which came as a direct response to the CIT's preliminary injunction in the case over the USTR's move.

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

The 1974 Trade Act “does not authorize” the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the “original” Section 301 lists 1 and 2 tariffs on Chinese goods under the “circumstances present” in the lists 3 and 4A duties, argued Akin Gump lawyers for sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, in their final written brief Nov. 15 at the Court of International Trade before the litigation moves to oral argument Feb. 1, 2022. HMTX and Jasco, plus the thousands of complaints their September 2020 lawsuit sparked, seek to get the lists 3 and 4A tariffs thrown out and the paid duties refunded with interest.

President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels is a "clear misconstruction" of the law since the law permits only trade liberalizing alterations to the existing safeguard measures, the Court of International Trade said Nov. 16, reversing the revocation of the exclusion.

Importer Valeo North America's lawsuit seeking to compel the Commerce Department to issue a scope ruling should not be dismissed because, though Commerce did eventually issue a scope ruling, the ruling was not lawful, the company argued in a Nov. 15 brief at the Court of International Trade. Though Commerce argued that the scope ruling means CIT no longer has jurisdiction over Valeo's case, the importer says that scope ruling was invalid because it did not follow the framework set by Commerce's scope regulations (Valeo North America, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00426).

A key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that found that the president can impose greater Section 232 national security tariffs beyond the 105-day deadline for action laid out in the statute is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Transpacific Steel, Borusan Mannesmann and The Jordan International Company filed a petition Nov. 12 in an attempt to get the high court to side with the original Court of International Trade decision, which held that the president may not make such adjustments.

The Commerce Department continued to find the all-others rate in an antidumping investigation by averaging a respondent's zero percent margin and the large China-wide adverse facts available rate, despite the most recent Court of International Trade opinion ruling against this position. Submitting its fourth remand results to CIT, Commerce said that it had to stick with this method for finding the all-others rate due to the scarcity and inadequacy of the alternatives (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00002).