Exporter Kingtom Aluminio opposed an attempt by U.S. industry groups the Aluminum Extruders Council and the United Steelworkers union to intervene in Kingtom's case against a finding by CBP that the company uses forced labor. Kingtom argued that the petitioners want to employ the "age-old schoolyard tactic of 'two-against-one,'" adding that the parties have "no independent interest of their own in this action" (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

The U.S. responded Feb. 7 to an Italian pasta exporter’s argument that application of excessive adverse facts available violates the Eighth Amendment, saying the amendment “has no bearing” on antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings. It explained that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circut has found the use of AFA to be “remedial, not punitive” (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned counsel for both antidumping respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi and the government on the Commerce Department's decision to use Turkish lira to value Habas' home-market sales in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham questioned Habas' claim that U.S. dollars should have been used because its home market price negotiations, invoices and records all used U.S. dollars (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).

The Commerce Department reasonably picked the financial statements of San Shing Fastech Corp. to calculate the constructed value profit and indirect selling expenses of respondent Your Standing International in a review of the antidumping duty order on nails from Taiwan, the Court of International Trade held in a Feb. 7 decision. Judge Claire Kelly said the agency appropriately found that San Shing makes "comparable merchandise," has contemporaneous financial statements and sells over 70% of its products to markets outside the U.S.

Rail coupler importer Strato Feb. 1 filed a motion for remand for reconsideration of an injury investigation, alleging “newly emerged evidence of fraud perpetuated by the domestic industry” (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00157).

A Wisconsin man filed a pro se lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the president's ability to impose tariffs, arguing that any attempt by the president to levy import duties represents an improper delegation of power under the U.S. Constitution. The individual, Gary Barnes, said imposing tariffs "is not within the jurisdiction of the President's duties," noting that the power to levy tariffs rests solely with Congress (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).

The Commerce Department erred in using a country-wide adverse facts available rate in calculating the antidumping duty rate for the separate rate respondents, importers led by Galleher Corp. argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Galleher argued the use of the AFA rate "punishes" the separate rate firms for respondent Sino-Maple's "lack of cooperation" and leads to an "aberrational margin that does not bear any relationship to the actual dumping margins of the separate rate companies" (Fuson Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).

China opened a dispute at the World Trade Organization on Feb. 5 to challenge the new 10% tariff imposed by the U.S. on all goods from China, claiming that the measure violates the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. China said that not only do the duties violate the U.S. government's "Schedule of Concessions and Commitments," they're also "discriminatory and protectionist in nature."

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.

Responding to a request by the court, multiple parties filed four different briefs addressing the impact of Loper Bright on litigation regarding the use of a differential pricing analysis in a Canadian lumber review (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).