CBP illegally denied importer Atlas Power's protest claiming its NVIDIA CMP 170HX printed circuit assemblies were exempt from Section 301 duties, Atlas said in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said its assemblies, classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8473.30.1180, qualify for a Section 301 exclusion for unfinished logic boards (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).
Heat-treated forged steel rods imported by ME Global are properly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as "other bars" not further worked than forged, rather than in the importer's preferred classification as "grinding balls and similar articles for mills," the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 2 decision.
Plaintiffs led by Bioparques de Occidente have jurisdiction to challenge the Commerce Department's decision to resume an antidumping duty investigation following the termination of a suspension agreement, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that no challenges to restarting investigations are valid unless part of a challenge to a final determination (see 2204140067), and Bioparques' case challenges a final determination, the court has jurisdiction to hear these claims.
The Commerce Department properly hit Greek exporter Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry with a 41.04% total adverse facts available antidumping duty rate, given that its reported costs were not reconciled to its normal books and records, the Court of International Trade ruled. Judge Leo Gordon said the law does not require Commerce to respond to Corinth's arguments on its use of total AFA, which the agency employed in the first instance amid the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Greece.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 1 upheld the Commerce Department's valuation of an activated carbon input using data from a country different from the primary surrogate country. Judges Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll and Leonard Stark said that just because Commerce departed from what it typically does in preferring to take all the data from the primary surrogate country, this "does not mean that what it did do is unsupported by substantial evidence."
The EU opened compliance proceedings against the U.S. stemming from its alleged "failure to comply with" the World Trade Organization ruling on its countervailing duties covering ripe olives from Spain, the EU's Directorate-General for Trade announced last week. The proceedings' first step involves a "request for consultations" at the WTO with the U.S. with the goal of "reaching a negotiated settlement." If this measure fails, the EU can request a compliance panel. If the panel confirms noncompliance, the EU will be allowed to take "further measures," the bloc said.
U.S. Steel Corp. moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to root out "masked" dumping. U.S. Steel said the other parties in the case consented to the motion. The Federal Circuit reactivated the appeal after putting it on hold pending a bid to reconsider the underlying Court of International Trade decision. CIT previously denied exporter SeAH Steel's motion for reconsideration of its decision finding Commerce adequately addressed the Federal Circuit's concerns over the use of the d test in its Stupp decision (see 2302270049) (SeAH Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1109).
The standard for whether a surrogate financial statement is considered publicly available so it can be used in an antidumping duty proceeding says that "interested parties may independently access the information," the government said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Ashley Furniture Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00283).
None of the Court of International Trade's conclusions upholding the use of the Cohen's d test to root out "masked" dumping address the Commerce Department's "core error" of using a 0.8 threshold "when the statistical assumptions of normality, variance, and size have not been proven," thermal paper exporters led by Koehler Paper argued. In a reply brief at the trade court, Koehler said CIT's recent decisions in Stupp Corp. v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S. "do nothing to mitigate the fundamental flaws" of using the d test (Koehler Paper, et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00632).
The Commerce Department properly used financial statements from Indian company Sundram as the source of surrogate financial data in the antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from Oman, despite evidence the company received countervailable subsidies, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After Commerce winnowed potential surrogate companies from 11, the two remaining companies -- Hi-Tech Fastener Manufacturer and Sundram -- received subsidies. Since Sundram's data was contemporaneous with the investigation period and Hi-Tech's was not, Commerce legally went with Sundram, the government said in its reply brief (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).