The Commerce Department cannot use the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping when the "underlying data is not normally distributed, equally variable, and equally and sufficiently numerous," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on April 22. Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen said that it's "unreasonable" to use the test when it's applied to "data sets that do not satisfy the statistical assumptions."
The Court of International Trade on April 22 denied a group of five companies' application for a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Judges Gary Katzmann, Timothy Reif and Jane Restani held that the companies "have not clearly shown a likelihood that immediate and irreparable harm would occur" before the court considers their motion for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs.
The Court of International Trade on April 19 denied a group of Canadian lumber exporters' bid to have the court explicitly state CBP's obligation to refund countervailing duty cash deposits established by the court in a previous decision. Judge Mark Barnett said the exporters haven't shown that there was any clerical or other mistake in the court's previous order and that "the equities do not favor granting" this requested relief.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed April 21 the Commerce Department’s decision to adjust wind tower exporter Dongkuk S&C Co.’s steel plate input costs based on fluctuations in the input’s price over time -- price fluctuations unrelated to the plate’s physical characteristics. The department isn’t limited to adjusting only the costs of the physical characteristics it has used to define CONNUMs, it said.
The Court of International Trade cannot order the reliquidation of finally liquidated entries except where a protest has been filed or a civil action has been filed challenging an antidumping duty or countervailing duty determination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on April 21. Judges Richard Taranto and Raymond Chen held that the statute, 19 U.S.C. 1514, doesn't let the trade court order reliquidation based on equitable considerations.
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 11 invited the Court of International Trade to respond to the government's petition for writ of mandamus regarding the trade court's recent decision finding the commission's practice of automatically redacting questionnaire responses to be unlawful (see 2503270057). In a per curiam order, CAFC invited Judge Stephen Vaden, the author of the opinion, to respond no later than April 22. The court said any reply in support of the petition is due "no later than seven days after the last-filed response." The U.S. filed its mandamus bid last week, asking the appellate court to order the trade court to retain the commission's designation of information as business proprietary information unless the submitting party consents to disclosure (In re United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-127).
Disagreeing with exporter BASF, the U.S. argued April 7 that the exporter’s beta-carotene product Betatene had been properly classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because it was used as a specific -- not general -- food additive, and its additives were used for more than just stable transportation or preservation (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned both exporters Guizhou Tyre Co. and Aeolus Tyre Co. and the U.S. government during oral argument on the exporters' challenge to the Commerce Department's finding that Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus didn't show independence from Chinese state control in the seventh review of the antidumping duty order on new pneumatic off-the-road tires from China (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-2163, -2165).
An attorney for exporters China Manufacturers Alliance and Double Coin told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit they were dropping their argument that it was a legal error for the Commerce Department to consider only one of four statutory factors in determining government control. The attorney, James Durling, was questioned by the appellate court during April 7 oral argument on his remaining point -- that the department’s decision to reject the exporters’ separate rate applications wasn’t based on substantial evidence (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).