The Court of International Trade on May 2 sustained the Commerce Department's recalculation of exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's sales expenses in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Sahamitr failed to undermine Commerce's finding that the company's monthly-based calculation of its sales costs were distortive.

The Court of International Trade on May 2 again sent back the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea (K-ETS) was de jure specific. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce improperly used de facto specificity analysis factors, including data on who received the allotments, in assessing whether the additional permit allocations were specific as a matter of law.

Southwest Airlines argued in an April 30 motion for judgment that CBP illicitly exacted Customs Passenger Processing Fees for passengers that canceled ticket purchases with the airline (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).

Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that classifying its substances used to "treat life-threatening diseases in young children" as food preparations "not elsewhere specified" as opposed to "medicaments" or items "for the use or benefit" of handicapped people would lead to the "parents of very ill children" paying higher prices for these substances. In its opening brief on April 30, Nutricia said that this isn't the result Congress intended and that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule "can and should be interpreted to avoid that result" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).

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.

A U.S. motion to reconsider a Court of International Trade decision (see 2404180041) finding that CBP defied the implicit contractual term of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment under a customs bond from a surety company is "both procedurally and substantively flawed," surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. said (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).

Trade lawyers said that recent legislation expanding the statute of limitations on sanctions violations from five to 10 years comes with clear expectations: costlier and longer sanctions investigations.

The Court of International Trade in an April 19 decision made public April 29 sent back for the third time the Commerce Department's decision not to investigate the sale of off-peak electricity in South Korea for less than adequate remuneration. Judge Mark Barnett said that Commerce failed to explain why evidence submitted by petitioner Nucor Corp. was insufficient "pursuant to the low standard" for opening a subsidy investigation established in RZBC Group Shareholding Co. v. U.S.

Importer Netgear filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on April 26 seeking reliquidation of re-imported LTE routers under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9802.00.50. The company is seeking refunds of any overpayments of Merchandise Processing Fees and Harbor Maintenance Fees, along with a refund of Section 301 duties (Netgear v. United States, CIT # 22-00129).

The statute on deemed liquidation for drawback claims "doesn't make sense as written," Judge Jane Restani said during April 18 oral arguments at the Court of International Trade. She said that both importer Performance Additives and the government are "adding terms to the statutes that aren't there," but said she understands because "none of this can work if we just read the words that are there" (Performance Additives v. United States, CIT # 22-00044).