The U.S. on April 8 moved to dismiss a customs suit from importer UniChem Enterprises for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It said no protestable decision was made on the lone entry of 7-keto dehydroepiandrosterone (7-Keto DHEA) because the shipment is detained pending a decision by the Drug Enforcement Administration (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).

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.

Chinese exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to "re-visit and question" the Commerce Department's basis for its non-market economy policy in antidumping duty proceedings. The exporter noted that the policy "has reigned for over twenty years without serious legal challenge," arguing that the appellate court has never directly reckoned with the policy's legality and that it's "high time" for such a review (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 8 dismissed importer Rimco's challenge of antidumping and countervailing duties on its steel wheel entries, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Court of International Trade on April 8 referred LE Commodities' challenge to 14 denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs to mediation before Judge Leo Gordon. The order was penned by Judge M. Miller Baker, who gave the parties until July 8 to complete the mediation, unless Gordon "recommends an extension" (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).

Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked appellants to explain why they shouldn’t remand a case regarding the ambiguity of the term “butt-weld” in an antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China. They said that if the term is not ambiguous because industry practice defines it, as the appellants claim, then what the industry practice actually entails is a factual question that must be decided by the Commerce Department (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned the Commerce Department's decision to pull forward a 78% adverse facts available rate from a prior antidumping duty review in the 2018-19 AD review on steel nails from Taiwan, but not the lower rate for the non-individually examined respondents (PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 4 sustained the Commerce Department's decision that Australian exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for antidumping duties. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Leonard Stark echoed the Court of International Trade in finding that it would have been "unreasonable" for the exporter to include the AD in the price charged to the importer because the "exporter itself was not responsible for those duties."

The Court of International Trade on April 3 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision to countervail exporter KG Dongbu Steel's three debt-to-equity restructurings after initially declining to countervail them in the preceding three countervailing duty reviews on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea.

Grace Ocean Private Limited, owner of the vessel that brought down a segment of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore last week, filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on April 1 seeking to avoid liability "for any loss or damage arising out of" the vessel's collision with the bridge. The manager of the M/V Dali vessel, Synergy Marine, also joined the petition (In the Matter of the Petition of Grace Ocean Private Limited, D. Md. # 24-00941).