The Commerce Department stuck by its decisions not to account for compliance costs in its countervailing duty calculations for programs under the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act and to find that Germany's KAV program is de jure specific, in remand results filed with the Court of International Trade on Jan. 10. Commerce said that it did not make any changes to the CVD rates in the investigation for respondent BGH Edelstahl Siegen (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. United States, CIT # 21-00080).

CBP is reversing its finding that six companies evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, after finding it did not consider important evidence when it affirmed the original evasion finding in an administrative review, in remand results filed Jan. 4 at the Court of International Trade (H&E Home Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00337).

Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching for the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

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 following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 3-8:

The antidumping and countervailing duty processes insure that proceedings are accurate and based on complete information, a Government Accountability Office report found. The report, released Jan. 9, was commissioned at the request of Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in order to examine concerns that domestic companies may sometimes file petitions without merit to obstruct domestic market competition, the GAO said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 9 order gave the U.S. more time to file its reply brief in a case involving imports seized as "drug paraphernalia." The government now has until Feb. 10 to submit its response. Root Sciences filed the case after CBP seized one of its cannabis crude extract recovery machines. The agency didn't notify Root of the seizure but instead sent the importer an automated notice that the goods had been deemed excluded from entry. Root eventually learned of the seizure through an email from DOJ eight hours after filing its case at the Court of International Trade (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1795).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department's surrogate value picks for inputs of activated carbon violated the law, exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. argued in a Jan. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce further erred by deducting VAT amounts from Jilin Bright's export price and in its valuation of the overhead; selling, general and administrative expenses; and profit components of normal value by calculating surrogate financial ratios with data from Tan Meng Keong and Century Chemical Works, the exporter said (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00336).

The Supreme Court of the U.S. in a Jan. 5 order gave the government more time to respond to a petition in a broad challenge to President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The U.S. now has until Feb. 21 to respond after arguing that it needed additional time due to the "heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter" (USP Holdings v. United States, U.S.S.C. #22-0565)