CBP need not allow exporter Oman Fasteners to continue to post bond instead of paying Section 232 steel and aluminum duties given the exporter's "longstanding history" of failing to honor the bonding arrangement, the U.S. said in a Sept. 28 brief at the Court of International Trade. Replying to Oman Fasteners' motion to compel the U.S. to honor a CIT order, the government argued that the plaintiff's claims are based on an "incomplete telling of the facts," and that Oman Fasteners is not entitled to the privilege of bonding, especially when it has violated the bonding arrangement via under-bonding (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT #20-00037).

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 Court of International Trade should reconsider its decision upholding the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty review given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision calling the use of a statistical test underpinning the analysis into question, plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Sept. 26 motion. SeAH said the opinion also should be revisited over its move to uphold Commerce's inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses as general and administrative (G&A) expenses (SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).

The Court of International in a Sept. 27 order denied a joint motion from plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case and the U.S. to stay proceedings pending the trade court's resolution of an action looking into whether the Commerce Department's relevant scope determination was legal. Judge Mark Barnett held that the claims in the EAPA case "are largely independent of Commerce's scope ruling."

Steel company NLMK Pennsylvania has "no basis" to argue that the Court of International Trade should take over the Section 232 tariff exclusion process and simply award the importer hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. argued in a reply brief at the trade court. Looking to rebut NLMK's arguments seeking to discredit the Commerce Department's denials of NLMK's 58 Section 232 exclusion requests, the U.S. said that the relief that the steel company seeks is "clear overreach" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT #21-00507).

Despite sales terms to the contrary, a Hong Kong middleman never held title to merchandise imported from China and Taiwan into the U.S., so “first sale” valuation is unavailable and the goods should be valued at the price paid by the importer, CBP said in a recent ruling. Incoterms aside, the importer paid for freight and insurance, and title transferred alongside risk of loss directly from the manufacturer to the importer, with the middleman acting more as agent, CBP said in HQ H316892.

The Commerce Department must provide further explanation for, and if needed, reconsider its finding as to whether the "likely selling price" of non-prime plate set in antidumping respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books is the best available information for evaluating the cost of production, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 23 opinion. Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in a "parallel matter" instructing Commerce to find the actual cost of production for prime and non-prime cut-to-length plate, Judge Leo Gordon sent back Commerce's reliance on Dillinger's "likely selling price" of non-prime plate.

The Commerce Department properly hit antidumping respondent Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial with total adverse facts available for its failure to report all of its factors of production data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Sept. 23 opinion. Judges Kimberly Moore, Pauline Newman and Kara Stoll ruled that the CONNUM-specific reporting requirement is an interpretive rule and not a legislative one requiring a notice-and-comment period, and found Pioneer failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by not maintaining adequate records and not developing a proper reporting methodology.

Mandatory antidumping respondent Dong-A Steel Co. can intervene in a challenge to an antidumping review brought by the review's other mandatory respondent HiSteel Co., the Court of International Trade ruled in a Sept. 22 opinion. Judge Gary Katzmann said that Dong-A has "piggyback standing" to intervene since it and HiSteel seek the same relief, and that the exporter can intervene "as of right" since it is "an interested party who was a party to the proceeding."

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 22 opinion denied plaintiff Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's motion to stay its countervailing duty review challenge pending resolution of a case over the previous review of the same CVD order. Judge Gary Katzmann said the stay would not promote judicial economy since the pending cases are before CIT and not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and that Kaptan has not put forth any "pressing need" for a stay. The judge commented on the lack of any "talismanic formula" for finding when a stay motion should be granted and the need to weigh the various conditions at play.