The Commerce Department on April 16 once again found, on remand, that the South Korean government’s cap-and-trade carbon emissions program was de jure specific to one of the program’s users, a steel exporter (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00029).

The Court of International Trade on April 17 said that after the Commerce Department decided to continue an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes initially paused in 1996, it must use the original investigation period, 1995-96, and not the later period of 2018-19. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the statute and congressional intent are clear that when Commerce resumes a suspended AD investigation, it must stick with the original investigation period.

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 International Trade Commission on April 16 continued to stick by its decision that imports of methionine from Spain had "significant price effects on prices for the domestic like product," part of its finding in an antidumping duty investigation that the imports of the product injured U.S. industry. In remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, the commission said it considered the "factual accuracy of the volume of lost sales," as instructed by the court, and came to the same conclusion (Adisseo Espana v. United States, CIT # 21-00562).

The Court of International Trade in an opinion made public April 16 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube Exports in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India.

Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. will submit a delisting petition with the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to get off the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company told the Court of International Trade in an April 12 status report (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on April 12 ruled that Texas construction equipment distributor I Dig Texas didn't falsely represent its skid steer attachments as being made in the U.S. The court said the company's advertisements were ambiguous on whether the products' parts are all American-made or whether the goods themselves were assembled in the U.S. (I Dig Texas v. Kerry Creager, 10th Cir. # 23-5046).

The U.S. and a defendant-intervenor defended the Commerce Department’s use of adverse facts available in another Export Buyers’ Credit Program case April 10 before the Court of International Trade. A Chinese solar cell exporter was slapped with the AFA after one of its customers refused to provide a non-use certificate (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).

In response to a petitioner’s claim that the Commerce Department was required to conduct a de facto specificity analysis on a German subsidy after finding that subsidy was not de jure specific, the U.S. said that such an analysis would "likely be futile” (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).

The Commerce Department reversed its scope ruling on modified vertical shaft engines with horizontal crankshafts on remand at the Court of International Trade, now finding that the engines don't fit under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).