The Court of International Trade sustained CBP's finding that Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio didn't evade antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. In a June 13 decision made public July 8, Judge Richard Eaton said Kingtom responded to all U.S. requests for information during an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, precluding the use of adverse facts available. He also said the court can't ignore "the total lack of any record evidence of any imports by Kingtom into the Dominican Republic" of aluminum extrusions made in China.

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 8 that its decision not to appear in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case "has no effect on the Court's standard of review." Filing a supplemental brief as an amicus at the invitation of the court, the government said its decision not to join the appeal "merely reflects its reasoned consideration not to pursue the appellate process" (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).

A former prisoner at the Hunan Chishan Prison in China sued Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. and Techtronic Industries Co. in the Eastern District of Wisconsin for importing goods made with forced convict labor. The individual, using the pseudonym Xu Lun, alleged that the firms violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which allows for civil suits against parties that knowingly benefit from taking part in a venture which the party "knew or should have known was engaged in forced labor" (Xu Lun v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., E.D. Wis. # 24-803).

The Commerce Department dropped the subsidy rate for exporter KG Dongbu Steel Co. from 10.52% to 5.89% after deciding on remand not to countervail the company's three debt-to-equity restructurings. The trade court remanded Commerce's decision in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea to countervail the restructurings after declining to countervail them in the preceding three CVD reviews (see 2404040043) (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).

The Court of International Trade heard oral argument last week on the government's motion for alternative service in a customs penalty case against German paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch. The U.S. claimed that it was proper to serve Koehler via its U.S. counsel, attorneys at Holland and Knight, while the exporter said the government should have sought service through "diplomatic channels" (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

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.

Litigants in a pair of cases at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jumped on the U.S. Supreme Court's move last week to axe the principle of agency deference when interpreting ambiguous statutes (see 2406280051). In notices of supplemental authority, two importers told the appellate court that the Court of International Trade relied on the now-defunct Chevron deference standard.

The government is attempting to argue that it has the discretion to decide what antidumping and countervailing duty orders mean regardless of those orders’ plain language, pipe fitting petitioners argued July 1 (NORCA Industrial Company, LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).

Refraining from joining exporters’ June 13 submission to the Court of International Trade (see 2406140059), a plaintiff-intervenor importer filed its own motion for judgment making similar arguments against Commerce’s finding that Thai solar panel exporters had circumvented an antidumping duty order on solar panels from China (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).

The U.S. on July 1 urged the Court of International Trade to dismiss customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's suit contesting CBP's suspension of the company from participation in the Entry Type 86 pilot and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program. The government said Seko's claims aren't ripe for judicial review, are moot and are premature (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).