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).

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 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).

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 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's analysis of whether a company from a non-market economy has rebutted the presumption of government control was improperly applied to exporters that are minority-owned by state-owned enterprises, exporters Aeolus Tyre Co. and Guizhou Tyre Co. said in a pair of opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Both companies said Commerce instead should have considered all four factors relating to the presumption of foreign state control and not just the "truncated analysis" of whether potential control over export activities via control of management selection was in play (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

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.

Importer Cherish Your Health Food "failed to exercise reasonable care and competence" in submitting import documents related to its entries of fresh garlic from China, the U.S. said in an Oct. 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade. As a result of the company's "negligent violations" of customs laws, the U.S. is seeking over $254,000 related to a group of three entries, dubbed "Group A," it said (United States v. Cherish Your Health Food, CIT # 23-00230).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 30 denied a petition for writ of certiorari regarding one question on Nebraska man Byungmin Chae's customs broker license exam. Chae took the test in April 2018 and subsequently took the result through multiple levels of administrative and judicial appeal before seeking Supreme Court review. He will remain one correct answer shy of the 75% threshold needed to pass the exam (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-200).