CBP abused its discretion by ignoring explicit antidumping and countervailing duty scope language when it found that importer and AD/CVD petitioner Pitts Enterprises evaded the AD/CVD orders on chassis and subassemblies thereof from China, Pitts argued in a Nov. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer admitted to integrating Chinese axle and landing gear leg components into finished chassis shipments, which were finished in Vietnam, but it said individual Chinese components were "explicitly removed from the scope" (Pitts Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 23-00234).

The U.S. addressed all three of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's concerns regarding the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to find "masked" dumping in antidumping duty proceedings, the government told the appellate court. Submitting its reply brief on Nov. 6 in the lead case on Commerce's use of the test, the U.S. claimed that data sets with non-normal distribution "do not inevitably lead to inaccurate results," the ratio test used as part of its differential pricing analysis accounts for data sets with small amounts of numbers and the test runs effectively involving data sets with small variance (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

The "true nature" of a case brought by Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) is to challenge the International Trade Commission's finding on non-negligiblity in the underlying antidumping duty investigation on hot-rolled steel from Turkey, despite Erdemir's insistance that the challenge is to the ITC's decision not to hold a reconsideration proceeding, a group of defendant-intervenors led by Cleveland-Cliffs said in their Nov. 3 reply at the Court of International Trade (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).

The Commerce Department added another respondent to the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the agency couldn't limit the review to one mandatory respondent. Tapping exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co. in its remand results, Commerce calculated an 18.15% dumping margin for the exporter, also leading to a recalculation of the separate AD rate, which now sits at 41.36%, down from 64.57%. The China-wide rate held steady at 87.99% (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-000069).

The Commerce Department's decision not to give the South Korean government a chance to submit data from the Korean Electric Power Corporation as part of the agency's analysis of the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration was not backed by substantial evidence, exporter Hyundai Steel Co. argued (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

Two importers took to the Court of International Trade to challenge the Commerce Department's final determination that Chinese-origin unfinished pipe fittings that undergo final processing in Vietnam are under the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. The companies, International Piping & Procurement Group and Norca Industrial Co., said in a pair of complaints that Commerce's analysis, which found that the goods were not substantially transformed in Vietnam, was "flawed" and ignored key evidence (International Piping & Procurement Group v. United States, CIT # 23-00232) (Norca Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00231).

The Commerce Department correctly found that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. (LDC) was not affiliated with its unnamed primary fresh lemon supplier and correctly applied a de minimis rate to LDC, DOJ said in its Nov. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief responded to antidumping duty petitioner Ventura's August motion for judgment (see 2308040029) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

The Commerce Department flipped its position in an antidumping duty case, finding that a constructed export price offset was not warranted for AD respondents Husteel and Hyundai in the 2019-20 AD review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Issuing its remand results Oct. 31 at the Court of International Trade, the agency said its per unit analysis showed the home market level of trade is "not at a more advanced stage of distribution than the" level of trade of the constructed export price level of either respondent (Wheatland Tube v. U.S., CIT # 22-00160).

The Commerce Department properly calculated the manufacturing overhead ratio in an antidumping duty review because the agency complied with the Court of International Trade's remand order regarding the calculation, the trade court said in an Oct. 30 opinion. Judge Richard Eaton said Commerce legally used the amount for indirect production expenses in the ratio's numerator while stating its reasons for subtracting energy costs from this number and placing them in the denominator, as instructed.

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.