Plaintiff-appellants in a case challenging the termination of an antidumping duty suspension agreement filed a motion for a panel or full court rehearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the court found that the appellants made no plausible challenge to the termination. Appellants Bioparques de Occidente, Agricola La Primavera and Kaliroy said the court's decision was made "despite the absence of any briefing or arguments on the matter in this appeal," raising serious fairness and due process concerns (Bioparques de Occidente v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #20-2265).

Arguments from plaintiff-appellants in an antidumping duty case, led by Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., are merely a bid to have the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit impermissibly re-weigh the record evidence over surrogate value questions, defendant-appellees Calgon Carbon Corp. and Norbit Americas argued in a May 31 reply brief. Also filing its reply brief was DOJ, arguing that the Commerce Department properly picked Malaysia over Romania as the primary surrogate country (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1298).

The Commerce Department failed to properly consider the "extremely disproportionate and prejudicial result" that stemmed from its decision to reject an untimely filing in an antidumping sunset review that led to the revocation of the order, three U.S. chemical companies argued in a May 31 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Commerce's "exceedingly narrow view" of what qualifies as an "extraordinary circumstance" isn't supported by the statute, evidence or the agency's own prior practice, given that Commerce said the U.S. companies' counsel's medical issues didn't qualify as such a circumstance, the brief said (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).

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 Commerce Department again defended the use of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis to detect "masked" dumping in remand results filed on May 26 at the Court of International Trade. Responding to the court's order instructing the agency to address questions on the use of the test raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Commerce said that the appellate court's chief concern -- that the test as used by Commerce did not satisfy certain statistical criteria -- is not applicable in the present case (Marmen Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00169).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping case and a countervailing duty case both brought by exporter Celik Halat after the agency accepted submissions made just minutes late. Judge Timothy Stanceu upheld the agency's remand findings after Commerce accepted the submissions it initially rejected for being late -- a move dubbed a "draconian penalty" by Stanceu.

The Court of International Trade in a May 26 order denied the U.S.'s stay bid in an antidumping case, citing harm to plaintiff and exporter Building Systems de Mexico (BSM) that could result from the stay. Judge Claire Kelly ruled that "a stay is not appropriate in this case," given that BSM has already successfully challenged four bases for the Commerce Department's finding of dumping and a stay "would significantly devalue" the company's investment in the challenge.

A renewable energy trade group called on the Commerce Department to end its anti-circumvention inquiry on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, citing a recent news article that quoted energy industry analysts saying Auxin Solar misapplied their research to justify its allegations of circumvention.

As companies work to move assembly out of China so that the goods they export to the U.S. won't be hit with Section 301 tariffs, they have to grapple with the fact that CBP may still consider a good made in Mexico, Malaysia, Vietnam or elsewhere to be a product of China if enough of its innards were made in China.

Anti-circumvention petitioners need to walk a fine line between being inclusive in their definition of the scope of the goods to cover all goods potentially guilty of circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties, and not causing "mischief" at the International Trade Commission by making the scope too broad, said Mary Jane Alves, partner at Cassidy Levy. Speaking during a panel at the Georgetown International Trade Update about the interplay between the Commerce Department and the ITC, Alves, speaking on her own behalf and not for her firm or clients, said that petitions seeking to cover products that are further assembled, blended or processed in the U.S. under anti-circumvention cases can risk having the ITC deem those assemblers, blenders or processors part of the domestic industry.