Steel exporter SeAH Steel Corp. wants a full court rehearing over a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that found reasonable the Commerce Department's practice of capping freight revenue when calculating U.S. price. Filing a motion for rehearing on April 25, SeAH said that the statute is not ambiguous on when U.S. price may be adjusted for freight costs seeing as it does not permit any adjustments for freight cost when the starting price does not include freight (NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, CAFC # 21-1334)
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The Commerce Department properly modified the scope of its antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from China in response to evidence of evasion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an April 25 opinion. Building materials company Bruskin International argued against Commerce's decision to accept the petitioner's scope request, telling the court the agency should have treated it as a request to amend the petition. But Judges Todd Hughes, Haldane Mayer and Kara Stoll ruled that Commerce was not bound to the preliminary scope and that it properly found the scope to be defective due to evidence of evasion.
The Commerce Department must reconsider its decision to use a simple average to calculate the pooled standard deviation when using the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis to target "masked dumping," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in an April 21 opinion. Ruling that Commerce strayed from the statistical literature without a proper explanation, Judges Pauline Newman, Alan Lourie and Richard Taranto said the agency should reconsider whether a weighted average for calculating the Cohen's d denominator is more appropriate.
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.
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.
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.
Decisions by a single port of entry cannot act as the basis for claims of an established treatment nationally by CBP for customs purposes, DOJ told the Court of International Trade in a brief filed March 29. In a tariff classification challenge brought by Kent International related to bicycle seats, DOJ said CBP New York/Newark's granting of protests doesn't establish a treatment that required notice and comment before CBP Long Beach classified the bicycle seats in a different subheading (Kent International Inc. v. United States, CIT #15-00135).
The Supreme Court of the U.S. declined to take up a key case over the president's power under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. Rejecting a petition from importer Transpacific Steel and several other companies, SCOTUS in effect upheld a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that said that the president can increase tariffs under Section 232 beyond procedural time limits.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied antidumping duty petitioner Welspun Tubular's request for a stay of its mandate during the company's appeal to the Supreme Court. In a March 23 order, Judges William Bryson and Todd Hughes rebuffed both of Welspun's arguments, which claimed that the company would suffer irreparable harm without a stay and that there's a reasonable shot the Supreme Court will reverse the appellate court's judgment (Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1748).
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.