President Donald Trump's recent executive order halting prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act likely won't change the behavior of many companies, given the risk of prosecution globally or in the U.S. after Trump leaves office, lawyers said.

Japanese exporter Nippon Steel argued Feb. 7 that the standard that respondents comply with antidumping and countervailing duty reviews to the best of their ability doesn’t require respondents to break their own governments’ laws (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00533).

President Donald Trump's recent expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs likely would survive a judicial challenge, particularly in light of the string of cases challenging the Section 232 duties imposed during his first term, trade lawyers told us. Thomas Beline, partner at Cassidy Levy, said Trump's move to eliminate the country-specific arrangements and product exclusions is "likely defensible," since the statute lets the president take any action he deems necessary where an agreement is "not being carried out or is ineffective."

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's third factor for assessing a foreign government's de facto control over an exporter, which addresses the selection of management, doesn't require a link to export activities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Feb. 11. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen also held that Commerce properly requires separate rate respondents to "carry a burden of persuasion to justify a separate rate," rejecting exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s claim that the agency shouldn't have conflated a rebuttable presumption with a requirement to carry a burden of persuasion.

Exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed an attempt by U.S. industry groups the Aluminum Extruders Council and the United Steelworkers union to intervene in Kingtom's case against a finding by CBP that the company uses forced labor. Kingtom argued that the petitioners want to employ the "age-old schoolyard tactic of 'two-against-one,'" adding that the parties have "no independent interest of their own in this action" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

The U.S. responded Feb. 7 to an Italian pasta exporter’s argument that application of excessive adverse facts available violates the Eighth Amendment, saying the amendment “has no bearing” on antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. It explained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circut has found the use of AFA to be “remedial, not punitive” (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned counsel for both antidumping respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi and the government on the Commerce Department's decision to use Turkish lira to value Habas' home-market sales in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham questioned Habas' claim that U.S. dollars should have been used because its home market price negotiations, invoices and records all used U.S. dollars (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).

The Commerce Department reasonably picked the financial statements of San Shing Fastech Corp. to calculate the constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses of respondent Your Standing International in a review of the antidumping duty order on nails from Taiwan, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 7 decision. Judge Claire Kelly said the agency appropriately found that San Shing makes "comparable merchandise," has contemporaneous financial statements and sells over 70% of its products to markets outside the U.S.

Rail coupler importer Strato Feb. 1 filed a motion for remand for reconsideration of an injury investigation, alleging “newly emerged evidence of fraud perpetuated by the domestic industry” (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00157).