Exporters Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. filed a stipulation of dismissal in the companies' case on the 2014 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. The exporters argued against the Commerce Department's decision to treat Jangho's curtain wall and window wall units as subject merchandise and the claim that Jangho received countervailable subsidies pertaining to the provision of glass (Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. v. United States, CIT # 17-00017).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court said that CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not providing it access to the confidential business information in the case (see 2307270038) (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).
Exporter Oman Fasteners petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. to take up its case contesting President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products just days before the high court refused to take up a nearly identical case. The Supreme Court denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for writ of certiorari on Oct. 30 (see 2310300020) (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Sup. Ct. # 23-432).
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).
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Oct. 30 in a case on the International Trade Commission's negative injury determination on fabricated structural steel from China. The appellate court said the ITC didn't err by declining to resolve an alleged ambiguity in the definition of the domestic like product scope (see 2309070058). The court added that nothing in the record showed the ITC declined to address the issue, adding that the commission didn't violate the law by deciding that the captive production exception isn't applicable and finding no significant price effects from the imports (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1176).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 31 ordered the clerk of the Court of International Trade to transfer samples of pipe conduit to the appellate court in a customs case on importer Shamrock Building Materials' electrical conduit entries. In the case, the trade court said the conduits cannot insulate the base metal from the electrical current or the heat in the wire it surrounds, barring classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8547. Shamrock is now arguing at the Federal Circuit that the heading, which covers "electric conduit tubing lined with insulating material," is the proper home for the goods (see 2309250037). The appellate court said the pipe conduit samples "may aid the court in its understanding of the issues in this case" (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).
The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 30 order granted the U.S. motion to treat certain parts of the record as "highly sensitive documents" in a case on exporter Ninestar Corp.'s addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann agreed to the request following a dispute on whether to allow the government to amend the protective order in the suit. The government argued that the documents, if revealed, could "'pose a danger of physical harm to certain persons" (see 2310300041) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
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.