The Commerce Department cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping review where multiple exporters have requested a review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in an Aug. 29 nonprecedential opinion. Reversing the Court of International Trade's finding, judges Pauline Newman, Alvin Schall and Sharon Prost said Commerce's interpretation of the statute finding that it can use only one respondent runs "contrary to the statute's unambiguous language." The judges ruled the agency has not shown it to be otherwise reasonable to calculate the all-others rate based on only one respondent and said the directive to find a weighted average gives no reason why it's reasonable to use only a single rate.

The Commerce Department properly excluded dual-stenciled pipe from the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Aug. 25 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden ruled that no line pipe was made in Thailand when the original AD investigation was conducted almost 40 years ago and that the International Trade Commission made no harm finding for line or dual-stenciled pipe from Thailand.

The Department of Commerce routinely made minimal effort to verify claims that imported specialty steel products easily could be supplied by domestic producers and therefore incorrectly denied product exclusions from Section 232 steel tariffs, LE Commodities said in an Aug. 24 complaint to the Court of International Trade (LE Commodities, LLC v. United States, CIT # 22-00245)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a recent and highly anticipated opinion ruled that CBP cannot consider a country's non-market economy status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment to a transaction (see 2208110060). The case, brought by importer Meyer Corp., now heads back to the Court of International Trade, which will hear arguments over how to appraise cookware imported by Meyer. John Peterson, counsel for Meyer, told Trade Law Daily that he is considering two options when the case gets back to the trade court: seek a retrial or mediation.

The Commerce Department stuck by its positions in an antidumping duty review, in Aug. 23 remand results. The agency further explained its selection of India as the primary surrogate country and its analysis of respondent NTSF Seafoods' reporting of the company's ratio of whole live fish to fillets and the moisture content of the fillets (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT #20-00105).

The Commerce Department unlawfully used an alternate method for calculating normal value in an antidumping duty review on goods from China, respondent Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products argued in an Aug. 22 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The exporter argued Commerce illegally based normal value on the price at which the subject merchandise, square tubes, is sold in other countries, rather than base normal value on the quantity of raw materials used to make the square tubes (Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00116).

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.

A U.S.-based shipper said a Taiwanese container shipping company violated Shipping Act regulations when it failed to supply agreed upon cargo capacity. MSRF, based in Illinois, said Yang Ming Transport “refused to provide more than a fraction of the cargo capacity that MSRF requested and needed” and violated the terms of their contract, forcing MSRF to buy cargo space on the “inflated” spot market. In an August complaint filed to the Federal Maritime Commission, MSRF said the FMC should investigate Yang Ming’s practices and order the container shipping company to pay “reparations.”

The Commerce Department erred in rejecting food and vegetable processing giant Seneca Foods Corporation's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, Seneca argued in an Aug. 19 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The vegetable canning company said that Commerce violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to meaningfully consider and explain its rejection of the exclusion requests (Seneca Foods Corporation v. United States, CIT #22-00243).

The Commerce Department should accept an exporter's evidence of entries to establish a separate rate in an antidumping duty case, or else conclude that it had no shipments and not review the company, the exporter, Ningbo Qixin, argued in an Aug. 18 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Canadian Solar International, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 20-2162).