The Court of International Trade in a May 10 opinion made public May 17 sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. In the opinion, Judge Mark Barnett remanded Commerce's use of adverse facts available over plaintiff Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems' (HEES's) reporting of certain parts as not being in the scope of the order. The judge also upheld the use of AFA relating to Hyundai's reporting of service-related revenue and the completeness of its U.S. sales database.

The Court of International Trade dismissed two cases brought by steel importer Voestalpine USA and steel purchaser Bilstein Cold Rolled Steel seeking to retroactively apply a Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion that was originally issued with a clerical error. Judge Mark Barnett said that the plaintiffs did not seek any relief that the court could grant since the entries eligible for the exclusion had already been liquidated, and the court does not have the power to order their reliquidation.

A federal magistrate judge at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in an order unsealed May 13 that the U.S. had probable cause to believe that an unnamed American citizen violated U.S. sanctions by using cryptocurrency to help various parties evade restrictions. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui ruled that virtual currency is traceable and that sanctions apply to virtual currency (In Re: Criminal Complaint, D.D.C. #22-00067).

The Court of International Trade should deny the U.S.'s stay motion in a case over an antidumping duty investigation since the stay risks harming Mexican exporter Building Systems de Mexico, the company argued in a May 16 reply brief. Seeing as the appeal would have the plaintiff wait until another case is ruled on at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, staying proceedings in the present case could risk the imposition of an antidumping duty order, requiring BSM's payment of cash deposits and participation in "costly" administrative reviews, the brief said (Building Systems de Mexico v. United States, CIT #20-00069).

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.

Imported house wrap, used during construction to protect the properties from water infiltration, should be properly classified as “Woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn...” under the duty-free heading 5407 rather than as "Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics" under heading 5903, CBP said in a March 8 ruling.

Shrimp exporters Minh Phu Seafood Joint Stock Co.'s and MSeafood Corp.'s surprise at the U.S. government's concession at oral argument that it did not review the entire record in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case does not stand as proper grounds for supplemental briefing, plaintiff Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee (AHSTEC) argued. Submitting a May 13 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, the U.S. producers group argued that the supplemental briefing motion represents a bid to revisit the arguments presented in the case and should be rejected as such.

The Commerce Department properly found affiliated antidumping duty respondents Ghigi 1870 and Pasta Zara failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in reporting the U.S. payment dates for their pasta sales, the Court of International Trade ruled in a May 4 opinion made public May 13. Returning to the trade court to further explain its use of an adverse inference, Commerce said Ghigi's and Zara's errors in reporting their U.S. payment dates was due to "inattention and carelessness." Judge Richard Eaton agreed, upholding the remand.

The Court of International Trade in a May 13 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's drop of facts available after the court made the agency give antidumping duty respondent Hyundai Steel Co. the chance to explain a discrepancy between the reporting of two data fields. The petitioner, U.S. Steel Corp., argued that the results should not be sustained given Hyundai's shifting narratives on the discrepancy. Judge Richard Eaton was not persuaded, however, arguing that since Hyundai gave Commerce the information it requested, the respondent replied to the best of its ability.

The Commerce Department has failed to rebut importer M S International's position that the agency failed to get adequate industry support to initiate its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on quartz surface products from India, the importer told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a May 11 reply brief. Commerce failed to take into account QSP fabricators in the domestic industry support conclusion, MSI said. In fact, the statute does not allow Commerce to label manufacturers as responsible for "production processes" that create covered merchandise and then allow the agency to exclude them from the domestic support question through a filter of "production-related activities" test, the brief said (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1077).