The International Trade Commission did not err by declining to resolve an alleged ambiguity in the definition of the domestic like product scope as part of an antidumping duty injury investigation on fabricated structural steel from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled. Upholding the commission's negative injury finding, Judges Jimmie Reyna, William Bryson and Tiffany Cunningham said that nothing in the record showed that the ITC declined to address the issue, as claimed by the Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC).

The U.S. and antidumping duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to respond to the "critical arguments" raised by exporter Dongkuk S&C Co. in a case on the AD investigation on utility scale wind towers from South Korea, Dongkuk told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a Sept. 1 reply brief, Dongkuk said both the government and the coalition did not, or could not, establish that the Commerce Department relied on substantial evidence when it weight averaged the respondent's steel plate cost for all reported control numbers (CONNUMs) (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #23-1419).

Byungmin Chae, a Nebraska man who took the customs broker license exam, petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. to hear his appeal of his test results. Chae appealed his test results to CBP, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, receiving credit for some of the question answers he challenged, but ultimately falling just one correct answer shy of a passing grade on the April 2018 exam (Byungmin Chae v. Janet Yellen, U.S. Sup. Ct. # 23-200).

On remand, CBP reaffirmed its determination that Fedmet Resources Corporation evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain magnesia carbon bricks (MCBs) from China, it said in its Sept. 1 remand redetermination to the Court of International Trade. The agency had sought and was granted a voluntary remand to consider several issues raised in Fedmet’s motion for judgment (see 2306290022) (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 21-00248).

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 Commerce Department must reconsider its decision not to investigate the alleged off-peak sale of electricity for less than adequate remuneration to countervailing respondent POSCO, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 21 opinion made public Sept. 4. Judge Mark Barnett again remanded the issue after finding that Commerce failed to clearly articulate a standard and apply that standard regarding petitioner Nucor Corp.'s allegation as part of the 2018 review of the CVD order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea.

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 1 upheld the final determination in an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from India, siding with the Commerce Department on the agency's decision to have respondents report their acquisition costs and to verify that information from a subset of their suppliers due top a lack of data from hundreds of individual honey producers.

The U.S. "consistently fails to consider" the filing of a collection action in the Court of International Trade as a valid "'demand' for liquidated duties," surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. told the trade court in an Aug. 30 reply brief. Given this failure, the government is illegally trying to limit the concept of "demand" to the issuance of a bill in its attempt to get Aegis to pay a customs bond on entries that liquidated in 2006, the brief said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 20-03628).

Door thresholds imported by Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products are both expressly and generally within the scope of antidumping and countervailing orders on aluminum extrusions from China, petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in an Aug. 29 reply at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).

A recent legal case in the EU helped clear up how the European Commission considers the factors it points to when identifying if a company has evaded antidumping duties, said Simran Sethi, senior manager at OCR Global Trade Management Software Solutions, during an Aug. 30 webinar. Speaking to the importance of import compliance in light of recent judicial developments in the U.S. and abroad, Sethi laid out the four criteria the commission considers when making its evasion findings.