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.
Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week questioned the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in identifying "masked" dumping in the lead case on the use of the test, which returned to the appellate court after its initial remand in 2023. Judges Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Leonard Stark asked counsel for exporter SeAH Steel Corp. if Commerce has a "lot of discretion" in how it uses the test, and they asked the government's attorney if the agency has discretion to use the test even if it's statistically unsound (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).
In oral argument March 7, judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and attorneys addressed whether the Commerce Department must, in scope rulings, make an independent determination about whether a product is covered by the plain language of an antidumping or countervailing duty order before moving on to (k)(1) factors (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164)..
The Commerce Department again failed to support its inclusion of marble composite tile made by Elysium Tiles within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China, the Court of International Trade held on March 11. Judge Jane Restani remanded Commerce's scope ruling for a second time, finding that the agency's focus on the tile's decorative features is irrelevant, and that Commerce engaged in a too-simple discussion on the additional processing the tile went through.
After two remands, the Court of International Trade sustained March 10 the Commerce Department’s choice of India as a surrogate over Indonesia for an antidumping duty review on Vietnamese-origin frozen fish fillets. The department’s selection was reasonable and adequately explained, it said.
The Court of International Trade affirmed March 7 the Commerce Department’s decision to not grant antidumping duty investigation respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals a home market price offset.
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated on Feb. 28 with the following headquarters rulings (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
The term “butt-weld” is ambiguous, and the Commerce Department was right to find steel branch outlets are covered by an antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 6.
In a March 4 complaint before the Court of International Trade, petitioner Bio-Lab again took issue with the Commerce Department’s surrogate selection in its antidumping duty review of chlorinated isocyanurates, or pool chlorine, from China (see 2407190046) (Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, CIT # 25-00054).
In Feb. 27 oral arguments, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif grappled with whether the Commerce Department reasonably selected a broader, less-specific plywood price dataset over a smaller, more specific one. He also dealt with the department’s application of adverse facts available to multilayered wood flooring review respondents after a finding of government control based on the Chinese government’s “deficient” questionnaire responses (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).