The Commerce Department permissibly rejected an adjustment to the cost of production of utility-scale wind towers to "account for production volume decreases before a shutdown" and properly selected two Malaysian pipe manufacturers as the surrogate companies to determine antidumping duty respondent CS Wind's constructed value profit, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 8. Judge Gary Katzmann upheld both of Commerce's decisions challenged by CS Wind in the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on Malaysian utility-scale wind towers, leaving the exporter with a 17.97% AD rate.

The Court of International Trade upheld CBP's determination, made on remand, that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking, Inc., evaded the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In a decision made public Oct. 9, Judge Lisa Wang rejected Scioto's claim that CBP can only make an affirmative evasion finding if it finds the importer to actually have imported covered merchandise through evasion, and the judge found the evasion determination to be supported by substantial evidence.

The Commerce Department properly excluded seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China on remand, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 9. Judge M. Miller Baker said the conclusion comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders.

Offering its thoughts as an amicus curiae to the Supreme Court’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs case, the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog said that if IEEPA does grant the executive the powers President Donald Trump claims, the law itself is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

The Commerce Department improperly found that the plain language of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China cover Vietnamese chassis with Chinese-origin components, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 8. Judge Claire Kelly said the orders "contain multiple ambiguities," including "when components are included within the scope of the Orders," when third-country operations exclude the individual components from the orders, and the meaning of "subassemblies ... whether ... assembled or unassembled."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 8 held that the Commerce Department's "cross-ownership regulation" turns on whether the purpose of the subsidy provided to a cross-owned input provider "is to benefit the production of both the input and downstream products." In clarifying how the regulation is to be applied, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Kara Stoll held that the Court of International Trade was right to reject Commerce's application of this regulation to countervailing duty respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals in the countervailing duty investigation on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India.

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.

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pressed counsel for importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination and the government during oral argument on Oct. 7 in the importer's customs classification suit on its notebooks with calendars. During the argument, Judges Alan Lourie, Raymond Chen and William Bryson grappled with whether the court is bound by its 2010 ruling in Mead v. U.S. and whether the goods are properly classified as calendars or diaries (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

A World Trade Organization dispute panel on Oct. 2 found that the EU violated its WTO commitments in its antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings on stainless steel cold-rolled flat products from Indonesia. Specifically, the dispute panel rejected the European Commission's attempt to countervail Chinese transnational subsidies in the Indonesian steel sector.

The Commerce Department erred in using likely selling prices as facts otherwise available for antidumping duty respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's cost of production, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Oct. 6. Judges Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk and Jimmie Reyna held that where there's a gap to fill on the record, "there must be a reasonable relationship between the selected facts otherwise available and the gap to be filled."