The Commerce Department's rejection of three U.S. chloropicrin producers' filing in an antidumping duty sunset review -- which resulted in the revocation of the nearly 40-year-old order on chloropicrin from China -- was a "marked abuse of discretion" given that the producers' lawyer was impaired with "medical and technical issues," plaintiff-appellants, led by Trinity Manufacturing, said in a March 14 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Trinity Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1329).

July 6 marks the fourth anniversary of the List 1 Section 301 tariffs' taking effect on Chinese imports, and the 1974 Trade Act requires their expiration after four years, “unless some conditions are met,” said David Olave, a Sandler Travis associate and trade policy adviser, on a recent podcast. “No unilateral 301 action that I know has made it through the four years, so we’re about to witness trade policy procedural history,” he said.

The risk of court-annexed mediation in an antidumping duty case "far outweighs the benefit," defendant-intervenor GEO Specialty Chemicals said in a March 14 brief opposing plaintiff Nagase & Co.'s bid for mediation, telling the trade court that it "vigorously" opposes Nagase's claim that an alleged error in Nakase's AD rate is easily correctable (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

A Mexican factory that was shut down by the government doesn't need to include costs incurred during the time it was inoperative in the parent company's computed value calculations, CBP said in a newly released Jan. 7 ruling. The facility, which is owned by Chamberlain, was shut down in March 2020 by state authorities in Sonora, Mexico, as part of an emergency decree closing all nonessential businesses in response to COVID-19. CBP's ruling hinged on the fact that the costs incurred during the time of the government-mandated shutdown were "not employed in the production of the imported merchandise."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a March 11 order that the Commerce Department did not properly support its position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Finding that three of Commerce's five reasons for finding a PMS were not backed by enough evidence, the Federal Circuit upheld the Court of International Trade's identical ruling. The appellate court also remanded Commerce's differential pricing analysis -- used to uncover "masked" dumping -- for relying on a statistical test that did not fulfill certain conditions to properly run the test.

The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping duty evasion case, in a March 11 order for CBP to fully consider the record. The agency requested the remand after it found out plaintiff Norca Industrial Company was not privy to documents relating to a third-party's visit to a Vietnamese manufacturer's production site. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves limited the remand to the issue of the whole record and not the other issues raised by Norca.

Exporter China Customs Manufacturing's solar panel mount assemblies are "fully and completely assembled" at the time they're imported, thus qualifying for a finished merchandise exclusion from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 8, CCM, along with Greentec Engineering, argued that the record shows that the solar panel mount assemblies satisfy each of the requirements for the exclusion, including being fully assembled at the time of entry (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1345).

Mayer Brown wants nearly $3 million in legal fees over a False Claims Act case it won for Island Industries in which a California district court said that Japanese manufacturer Sigma Corporation avoided antidumping duties. Petitioning the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Mayer Brown said that the $3 million request for fees, costs and expenses -- amounting to around 11.3% of the total judgment -- is "eminitely reasonably and justified" given Sigma's complex defense of its actions in multiple venues (United States v. Vandewater International, C.D. Cal. #17-04393).

The Court of International Trade granted steel importer North American Interpipe refunds on Section 232 steel and aluminum duties it paid following court mediation over the company's challenge to the U.S.'s denials of NAI's exclusion requests from the tariffs. Per the public stipulated judgment on agreed-upon fact, Judge M. Miller Baker penned an order which declares that NAI may not appeal (North American Interpipe v. United States, CIT #20-03825).

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act taken as a whole authorizes expedited countervailing duty reviews, the governments of Quebec and New Brunswick along with six Canadian companies argued in a March 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When taking into account the context of the URAA, its legislative history and the legislative process through which the URAA was adopted, it's clear that Congress meant to establish an expedited review process, the Canadian parties argued.