U.S. Steel Corp. moved for leave to join importer California Steel Industries' case challenging rejections of its requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions as amicus curiae, after its efforts to intervene in the suit were thwarted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).

The Court of International Trade on May 20 entered stipulated judgment in a pair of customs suits brought by Home Depot U.S.A., lowering the duty rate on the retail giant's imported residential door knobs packaged with at least one deadbolt, from 5.7% to 3.9% (Home Depot U.S.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 14-00122, -00123).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 20 that the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties.

Chinese truck and bus tire exporters subject to a nearly 5-year-old administrative review that was delayed by an ongoing court challenge should still have kept their records while the litigation played out (see 2402060054), Judge Mark Barnett said during oral argument in the case. During the review, the Commerce Department removed separate rate status for four exporters who refused to serve as mandatory respondents because they said they hadn’t kept the necessary records (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. U.S., CIT # 19-00069).

The Court of International Trade on May 16 said that the Commerce Department lawfully excluded imports from non-market economy and export-subsidizing countries from the datasets it used when calculating input cost of production and market price under the major input and transactions disregarded rules.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 15 said the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand unambiguously includes dual-stenciled pipe, reversing the Court of International Trade's decision.

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.

German paper exporters Koehler Oberkirch and Koehler Paper on May 13 opposed the government's bid to serve the companies' U.S.-based counsel in a separate case, claiming that the rules don't "permit such service." The exporters said service instead should be effectuated through diplomatic channels, as contemplated by the rules, as this would "respect international comity and due process principles" (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the principle of stare decisis requires the appellate court to sustain the legality of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

The U.S. on May 10 told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Court of International Trade "improperly relied on extra-record information" in rejecting the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on hardwood plywood from China (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).