The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to use India as its primary surrogate country on remand at the Court of International Trade in a case on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-00105).

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 appeared skeptical that antidumping duty petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee could overcome the Court of International Trade's discretionary finding that the petitioner failed to adequately argue that third country sales must be "for consumption" in the third country market when determining normal value (Z.A. Sea Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).

The Court of International Trade on May 31 sent back some and sustained some of the Commerce Department's surrogate value selections regarding antidumping duty respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co.'s inputs in the AD investigation on mobile access equipment from China.

Seko Customs Brokerage, which had added staffing to handle Type 86 filings before it was suspended from the Type 86 program beginning May 27 (see 2405310031), filed a complaint on June 3 asking the Court of International Trade to force CBP to reinstate it through an injunction.

The Court of International Trade on May 30 rejected the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora and Apiario Diamante Producao e Comercial de Mel, collectively doing business as Supermel, in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil. The decision sends back the 83.72% AD rate levied against the exporter.

The Court of International Trade on May 31 said that a duty drawback claim becomes deemed liquidated after one year if the underlying import entries are also liquidated and final, with finality defined as the end of the 180-day window in which to file a protest with CBP.

CBP continued to find that three importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China on remand at the Court of International Trade, after providing the companies with access to the confidential information in the Enforce and Protect Act proceeding (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT # 20-03914).

The Court of International Trade on May 28 rejected the government's motion for partial reconsideration of the court's decision finding that the government violated the "implied contractual term" of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment from surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. on a customs bond.

An Indian quartz countertop exporter had the 323.12% adverse facts available antidumping duty assigned to it remanded by the Court of International Trade on May 28.