The Commerce Department failed to adequately explain its treatment of costs needed to convert steel plates into wind towers in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 2. Judge Leo Gordon said the U.S. provided "inadequate" explanation of the decision to use respondent Dongkuk’s reported conversion costs instead of the costs reported by the petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition.

The Commerce Department abused its discretion in rejecting information submitted by countervailing duty respondent Ternium Mexico regarding three alleged subsidy programs in the CVD investigation on corrosion-resistant steel products, Ternium argued in a Nov. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Ternium Mexico v. United States, CIT # 25-00236).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned whether it should grant the government's voluntary remand motion in an antidumping duty case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in light of CAFC's decisions in Stupp v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S. During oral argument held Dec. 1, Judges Richard Taranto, William Bryson and Tiffany Cunningham appeared ready to grant the motion, asking the parties what specifically the remand order should say (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).

The U.S. urged the Court of International Trade on Nov. 24 to dismiss conservation group Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ's suit seeking an import ban on seafood and seafood products from set net and trawl fisheries off New Zealand's North Island (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 26 granted the government's motion for rehearing in a customs dispute on the classification of certain radial, web and chordal segments imported by Honeywell and used in airplane brakes, changing the classification of the parts to "fabrics" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6307. Judge Mark Barnett reversed his previous holding that the goods are "parts of an aircraft" under heading 8803, subjecting the items at issue to a 7% duty under subheading 6307.90.98.

CBP's regulations regarding the notice provided to importers subject to Enforce and Protect Act investigations and when CBP must initiate those investigations violated an importer's due process rights, the Court of International Trade held on Nov. 26.

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.

CBP lacked the authority to reliquidate three drawback claims regarding three jewelry entries made by Importer Zale Delaware, since the drawback claims deemed liquidated, Zale argued in a Nov 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Zale Delaware v. United States, CIT # 25-00139).

The Commerce Department permissibly changed its reason for using partial adverse facts available against antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai on remand in the 2020-21 administrative review of the AD order on Thai steel pipes and tubes, the U.S. told the Court of International trade on Nov. 24. The government said Commerce complied with the basic tenets of administrative law by taking new agency action on remand, adding that the agency properly applied partial AFA to find Saha Thai is affiliated with BNK Steel Co., a home market customer (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, CIT # 21-00627).

Steel plate exporters Hyundai Steel and Dongkuk Steel Mill filed a pair of reply briefs at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 20, contesting the Commerce Department's de facto specificity regarding South Korea's discounted off-peak electricity prices in the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea. Both companies contested Commerce's grouping of three unrelated industries to find that the steel industry received a disproportionate amount of the subsidy (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00190).