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 World Trade Organization published the agenda for the July 21 meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body, which includes U.S. status reports on the implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB on antidumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan; antidumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from South Korea; certain methodologies and their application to antidumping proceedings involving China; and Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act. A status report also is expected from Indonesia on measures relating to the import of horticultural products, animals and animal products, and from the EU on measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 12 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Wheels Advertised as 'Not for Trailer Use' Not Subject to Steel Trailer Wheels Duties, Commerce Says
Wheels that are physically similar to trailer wheels but that are clearly marked as not for trailer use on marketing materials are not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on steel wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China (A-570-090/C-570-091), the Commerce Department said in a recent scope ruling.
The Court of International Trade should deny a stay motion in a case involving the provision of electricity at less than adequate remuneration in a countervailing duty case, the South Korean government said in a brief filed July 1.
Solar cells and modules manufactured in Turkey by HT Solar are not subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China (A-570-010/C-570-011), the Commerce Department said in a recent scope ruling, The scope of the solar products orders covers only solar modules and panels assembled in China using cells from third countries, Commerce said. As the solar cells and modules from HT Solar are manufactured in Turkey, the China solar products orders do not apply, even though some of the raw materials in the cells, including wafers, are sourced from China, the agency said.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department erred by finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration conferred a non-measurable benefit in a countervailing duty review, U.S. steel company Nucor Corp. argued in a July 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade. During the review, Nucor took issue with the evidentiary flaws with the cost data that Commerce used, telling the agency that it was illegal to say that the data reflected market-based costs. The suit mirrors the language in a separate case brought by Nucor over a different CVD review (Nucor Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00171).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a July 11 order dismissed an appeal from Wheatland Tube Co. on whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test in antidumping matters. Wheatland moved for a voluntary dismissal, telling the court that since the key case on this issue, Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., was not petitioned to the Supreme Court, the court should dismiss the appeal (see 2206280063). In Hyundai Steel, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce is not allowed to make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value (Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1300).
Importer Charman Manufacturing didn't evade antidumping duties on its malleable cast iron pipe fittings imported from China, CBP said in a July 5 determination. After looking into claims from Matco-Norca that Charman skirted the duties by transshipping the pipe fittings through Indonesia or Singapore, CBP said it didn't have substantial evidence proving these claims. The determination in the Enforce and Protect Act investigation is one of only a handful of times that CBP has come back with a negative evasion finding.