Trade Law Daily is providing readers with some recent top stories. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department's use of a simple average to calculate a pooled standard deviation as part of the differential pricing analysis in an antidumping duty case was reasonable and permitted under the statute, the U.S. and Mid Continent Steel & Wire said in reply briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Responding to the opening brief filed by the appellants, led by PT Enterprise, both the government and Mid Continent argued that the "academic literature" backed the use of simple averages and that PT's proposed method of weighing the averages cut against the science (Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1747).
At the height of the Section 301 exclusions, 10% of imports covered by the China tariffs were excluded, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, though that fell from 10% to 7% across 2020, as exclusions expired and were not extended. Overall, about $71 billion of imports avoided the tariffs, GAO estimated.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 19-25:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America is backing CBP's proposed use of Part 102 marking rules to determine the country of origin for non-preferential claims under USMCA (see 2107010045), the trade group said in a July 27 email. CBP proposes to use NAFTA's Part 102 tariff shift marking rules for determining country of origin for non-preferential USMCA claims and government procurement. Some have wondered whether the proposal will prove to be controversial (see 2107070011 and 2107080040).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Electralloy/G.O. Carlson will appeal to the U.A. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a Court of International Trade decision denying it the right to intervene in two Section 232 tariff exclusion challenges, it said in two July 23 notices of appeal. Judge M. Miller Baker of CIT rejected the company's intervention bid since the company doesn't have a legally protected interest in the case, a direct relationship with the litigation where it would gain or lose by the judgment, nor any demonstration that its interests will not be addressed by the government defense (see 2105260037). The U.S. Steel Corporation also tried to intervene in various Section 232 challenges, and filed its own appeal of the denied interventions on July 22 (see 2107220041). The company filed two more notices of appeal in two other Section 232 challenges on July 23.
The Labor Department continued to find that a unionized group of former AT&T call center employees are not entitled to trade adjustment assistance for outsourced jobs in July 22 remand results filed in the Court of International Trade. On May 4, the court remanded the case to the agency after Judge M. Miller Baker found that Labor failed to discuss or even reference the union's evidence of why the trade adjustment case was warranted in its determination (see 2105040032) (Communications Workers of America Local 4123, on behalf of Former Employees of AT&T Services, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, CIT #20-00075).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: