In response to a petitioner’s claim that the Commerce Department was required to conduct a de facto specificity analysis on a German subsidy after finding that subsidy was not de jure specific, the U.S. said that such an analysis would "likely be futile” (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).

The U.S. and a defendant-intervenor defended the Commerce Department’s use of adverse facts available in another Export Buyers’ Credit Program case April 10 before the Court of International Trade. A Chinese solar cell exporter was slapped with the AFA after one of its customers refused to provide a non-use certificate (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).

The Commerce Department reversed its scope ruling on modified vertical shaft engines with horizontal crankshafts on remand at the Court of International Trade, now finding that the engines don't fit under the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc from China (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).

The Court of International Trade on April 11 sent back the Commerce Department's duty drawback adjustment to exporter Assan Aluminyum, which led to a de minimis antidumping duty rate in the AD investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey. Judge Gary Katzmann said it "appears that" Commerce's methodology "impermissibly increased Assan's export price by more than 'the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated."

The Court of International Trade on April 10 rejected the preferred tariff classification of notebooks with calendars from both CBP and importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, slotting the products under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.20.10 as "diaries." Judge Jane Restani explained that the court should prefer readings of the HTS that establish "conformity" across both the English and French translations of the Harmonized System.

The Court of International Trade on April 10 remanded the Commerce Department's use of a 10.54% adverse facts available rate for alleged benefits exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. received from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Timothy Stanceu agreed with Yama that the agency failed to show that the subsidy program from which the rate was taken -- preferential lending rates to China's coated paper industry program -- is similar to the EBCP.

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 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).

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 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).