The Commerce Department properly hit antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing with partial adverse facts available, saying Tainai should know how to collect factor of production information from its downstream suppliers, given that the agency was conducting the 33rd review of the AD order, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 20 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The government said Commerce legally deducted Section 301 duties from Tainai's U.S. price and capped Section 301 duty payments (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00038).

It's legal for importer Keirton USA to enter marijuana-related drug paraphernalia into Washington state, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. Building on the trade court's similar Eteros decision, Judge Claire Kelly said Washington's repeal of past restrictions on marijuana-related drug paraphernalia constitutes an authorization of the manufacture, possession and distribution of these goods, so that importing these goods qualifies for the exemption under the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act of 1986. Kelly, like Judge Gary Katzmann in the Eteros decision, relied on the Supreme Court case Murphy v. NCAA to construe the definition of "authorization."

The Commerce Department must revisit its countervailing duty rate calculations for the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act and its finding that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 12 opinion made public Oct. 20. However, Judge Claire Kelly upheld the remaining points of contention in the case brought by BGH Edelstahl Siegen. including whether Commerce properly initiated the CVD investigation, the finding that the administrative record is complete, and "the determination that the provisions of the Electricity Tax Act and the Energy Tax Act, the EEG and KWKG Reduced Surcharge Programs, the ETS Additional Free Emissions Allowances, and the CO2 Compensation Program are countervailable subsidies."

A September Court of International Trade decision finding that the U.S. cannot seize or forfeit imports of federally deemed "drug paraphernalia" whose delivery, possession and manufacture were made legal in Washington state may not be as applicable to other states as certain importers would like, trade lawyers told Trade Law Daily. Since the opinion rests heavily on the precise language of the Washington state law legalizing marijuana, the trade court's ruling will only make the most difference in states with a similar law, one attorney said.

CBP's denial of plaintiff-appellant Borusan Mannesmann's post summary corrections (PSCs) and administrative refund request constitutes a protestable decision, meaning Borusan had jurisdiction to seek Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions, Borusan and Gulf Coast Express Pipeline argued in an Oct. 17 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellants also said that Federal Circuit precedent established that CBP's denial of a timely request for a refund of previously paid duties can constitute a protestable decision, and while these precedential opinions do not concern unliquidated entries as is the case with Borusan, there is nothing limiting these decisions (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-2097).

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.

An argument from apellees, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, in a Federal Circuit case that the safeguard statute implicitly limits the president to make "trade-liberalizing" measures relies on a "strained reading of the statutory contest," by placing undue emphasis on the fact that section 2254(b)(1)(B) lets the president find that the domestic industry "has made" a positive adjustment to import competition, the U.S. argued in an Oct. 17 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This position "relies on an illusory distinction between complete and ongoing adjustment," the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1392).

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is retiring from Congress at year's end, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that he was disappointed there were no trade items in the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science (CHIPS) Act. "But I’m ready to negotiate a grand bargain on trade in this lame-duck session," he said in a video address Oct. 17. Portman was scheduled to participate in a roundtable of former U.S. trade representatives but was traveling overseas on an official congressional trip.

The Commerce Department did not properly conduct its "primarily dedicated" analysis when it found that Nur Gemicilik ve Tic is a cross-owned input supplier of plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, Kaptan argued in an Oct. 11 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S.'s position that Nur is a cross-owned input supplier since scrap is used in the production of subject merchandise and all of Nur's scrap generation was sold to Kaptan, thus making it "primarily dedicated" to the downstream product, cuts against the words of the countervailing duty preamble and Commerce's own precedent, Kaptan said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT #21-00565).

The Court of International Trade should stop the International Trade Commission from releasing a group of plaintiffs' business proprietary information (BPI) to its former counsel and his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, given the former counsel's alleged "betrayal," the plaintiffs, led by Amsted Rail Co. (ARC), argued in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade. By not blocking the release of the BPI, the ITC is violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights, the brief said (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00307).