Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng said her government has filed notice that it is bringing a state-to-state dispute under USMCA over the increase in antidumping and countervailing duties on most Canadian softwood lumber exports. The Commerce Department issued the final results of the reviews in November (see 2112020026).

The Commerce Department found that importer Star Pipe Products' 11 ductile iron flanges are not subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China, in Dec. 22 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade, though it did so under protest (Star Pipe Products v. United States, CIT #17-00236).

The Commerce Department continued to find in Dec. 21 remand results submitted to the Court of International trade that certain flanges are subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. Holding that the flanges from Crane Resistoflex have the physical characteristics described in the scope's first paragraph, the agency again defended its position that Crane's flanges are within the scope of the order. In line with CIT's instructions, though, Commerce also dropped its arguments defending its scope decision using the AD petition, ITC report and past scope determinations (MCC Holdings dba Crane Resistoflex v. U.S., CIT #18-00248).

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's decision to find affiliation between antidumping duty respondent Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company and some of its Thai customers was not backed by enough evidence, the respondent argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Relying on information from the petitioner that is "vague and confusing" and not always connected to the merchandise under review, Commerce made an errant call, the complaint said. Further, the agency's decision to hit Saha Thai with partial adverse facts available based on its non-cooperation in the review was not supported by law, the company said (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. U.S., CIT #21-00627).

The Commerce Department needs to reconsider its decision to deny an antidumping duty review respondent a level-of-trade (LOT) adjustment related to the company's home market sales, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion. Seeing as the decision was based on a factual finding not backed by enough evidence and a second finding that is "vague and conclusory," Commerce needs to take another look at the issue, Judge Timothy Stanceu said.

Antidumping respondent Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group continued to argue that assigning it the China-wide entity rate is an unfair application of adverse facts available in Dec. 16 comments on the Commerce Department's remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Notably, though, Jinqiao Flooring did not mention a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion that found that China-wide rates can still be based on AFA even if no members of the countrywide entity were found to be uncooperative. Nevertheless, the company claimed it should be granted a separate dumping rate and that substantial evidence does not back Commerce's contention that it is de facto controlled by the Chinese government (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S., CIT #18-00191).

Although the Commerce Department could get a more accurate dumping rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping reviews by selecting more mandatory respondents, it has no legal requirement to do so, the Court of International Trade said in a Dec. 17 opinion. Sustaining Commerce's remand results, Judge Richard Eaton said that the agency properly excluded one of the two mandatory respondents' zero percent dumping rate and merely applied the other respondent's rate to all others in the review. The court also upheld Commerce's selection of surrogate data in the face of the plaintiffs' challenge.

Five Republican Senators filed an amicus brief on Dec. 15 with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to take up a case over the limits of the president's authority under the Section 232 national security tariff statute. The brief, signed by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Bill Cassidy, R-La.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., argues against a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion spurning time limits imposed in the statute. The time limits are crucial to ensuring that "Congress makes the major policy decisions regarding the regulation of foreign commerce," the lawmakers said.

In its comments on the Commerce Department's remand results, antidumping review petitioner Nucor Tubular grappled with a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion rejecting particular market situation adjustments for the sales-below-cost test. Arguing that since this decision is not yet binding as the mandate has not been issued, the Court of International Trade can still consider Nucor's position and rule in favor of the PMS adjustment (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT #20-00026).