The Commerce Department misapplied the presumption of foreign state control by framing it as a burden on antidumping and countervailing duty respondents to "completely disprove potential government control," exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. argued in an April 18 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2165).

The U.S. on April 17 filed for partial reconsideration of a Court of International Trade judgment that held the government waited too long to make a demand for payment under a customs bond, violating an "implied contractual term." The government said that it couldn't have "anticipated raising or discussing the issue" of an "implied contractual term of a reasonable time for demand," so it seeks to "do so here" (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).

The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's finding that exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Co. qualified for a separate antidumping duty rate in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on catfish from Vietnam, remarking that the agency failed to "show its work." Judge M. Miller Baker additionally remanded Commerce's methodology for calculating exporter Green Farms' AD rate and selection of India over Indonesia as the primary surrogate nation for setting the rate for exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company.

The Court of International Trade on April 17 said that after the Commerce Department decided to continue an antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes initially paused in 1996, it must use the original investigation period, 1995-96, and not the later period of 2018-19. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled that the statute and congressional intent are clear that when Commerce resumes a suspended AD investigation, it must stick with the original investigation period.

The Commerce Department on April 16 once again found, on remand, that the South Korean government’s cap-and-trade carbon emissions program was de jure specific to one of the program’s users, a steel exporter (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00029).

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.

The International Trade Commission on April 16 continued to stick by its decision that imports of methionine from Spain had "significant price effects on prices for the domestic like product," part of its finding in an antidumping duty investigation that the imports of the product injured U.S. industry. In remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, the commission said it considered the "factual accuracy of the volume of lost sales," as instructed by the court, and came to the same conclusion (Adisseo Espana v. United States, CIT # 21-00562).

The Court of International Trade in an opinion made public April 16 sent back the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube Exports in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on April 12 ruled that Texas construction equipment distributor I Dig Texas didn't falsely represent its skid steer attachments as being made in the U.S. The court said the company's advertisements were ambiguous on whether the products' parts are all American-made or whether the goods themselves were assembled in the U.S. (I Dig Texas v. Kerry Creager, 10th Cir. # 23-5046).

Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. will submit a delisting petition with the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force to get off the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company told the Court of International Trade in an April 12 status report (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).