Jacob Kopnick

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade revised the duty drawback adjustment for exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, resulting in a de minimis antidumping duty rate for the company in the AD investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00246).

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last week ordered importer Delta Uniforms and its owner, George Iloulian, to pay over $1.3 million for avoiding customs duties on medical uniforms, footwear and other apparel. Judge Paul Gardephe said they violated the False Claims Act and must pay triple the amount of the evaded duties and a $557,880 civil penalty.

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 said the International Trade Commission didn't establish an agency practice of considering U.S. investments by foreign producers as a distinctive condition of competition for cumulation analyses. Judge Gary Katzmann rejected exporter BlueScope Steel's claim that the ITC departed from its past practice in cumulating Australian hot-rolled steel exports with other nations' shipments as part of the five-year sunset review of the antidumping duty order on the steel goods.

The Commerce Department should have treated exporter Koehler's unpaid antidumping duty liability as a selling expense that lowered constructed export price (CEP) instead of as an increase to the cost of production, antidumping duty petitioner Domtar Corp. argued at the Court of International Trade. Filing a complaint on Aug. 1, Domtar said CEP should have been lowered since the expenses were "associated with commercial activities in the United States" (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department switched the basis on which it found the Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) was specific. Submitting its remand results under protest on July 31, Commerce said the full allotment of the permits was de facto specific after the Court of International Trade rejected the idea that the full allotment was de jure specific (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty scope case after denying a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (see 2407240048). The AD order's scope language includes standard pipe but excluded line pipe, and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s dual-stenciled pipes fit the industry specifications for both line and standard pipe. Two of the three judges deciding the case found that "meeting an additional specification" for line pipe "does not strip away the qualification of these pipes as standard pipes" (see 2405150027) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

The EU formally opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on July 30, asking for consultations with Taiwan regarding its measures related to off-shore wind installations. Those measures include domestic content requirements, which the EU claims are incompatible with commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures and the General Agreement on Trade in Services. The EU last week said it planned to open the dispute because of how they would affect the transition to green energy (see 2407260011). The request for consultations gives the parties 60 days to find a solution to the dispute. If no solution is found, the bloc can request for "adjudication by a panel."

Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation said the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051), is relevant to the consequential litigation concerning the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 duties (HMTX Industries v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo rejecting the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes doesn't call for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to revisit a decision sustaining the sanctions designation of former Afghan government official Mir Rahman Rahmani and his son, Hafi Ajmal Rahmani, the U.S. said this week (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).