The Commerce Department excluded exporter Export Packers Company's individually quick frozen cooked garlic cloves from the scope of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its remand results on Dec. 9 under protest, Commerce said that while it disagrees with the trade court's reasoning for remanding the case, it's respecting the court's ruling and following "the Court's logic, under protest, to its natural conclusion" and excluding the company's products from the AD order (Export Packers Company v. United States, CIT # 24-00061).

The Commerce Department dropped its finding that a South Korean electricity subsidy is de facto specific on remand in a case at the Court of International Trade concerning the 2021 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea (POSCO v. U.S., CIT # 24-00006).

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.

As lawsuits seeking refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs at the Court of International Trade continue to mount, lawyers remain uncertain of the refund process that would be followed should the Supreme Court strike down the tariffs, including whether refunds will come via judicial or administrative pathways.

The Commerce Department erred in not applying adverse facts available to antidumping duty respondent Tenaris Mexico for its failure to properly explain its "nonstandard basket category Threading codes" in the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on oil country tubular goods from Mexico, petitioner U.S. Steel argued in a Dec. 4 complaint at the Court of International Trade (United States Steel v. United States, CIT # 25-00243).

CBP improperly denied importer Software Brokers of America, doing business as Intcomex, the temporary exclusion from International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs on China for in-transit merchandise, the importer argued in a Dec. 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Software Brokers of America d/b/a Intcomex v. United States, CIT # 25-00381).

Trade lawyers are split over the necessity of filing lawsuits now to secure potential International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff refunds should the Supreme Court invalidate them, according to interviews with lawyers.

Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker partly remanded and partly sustained Dec. 5 the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Malaysia, saying Commerce failed to answer the “basic” question of how it now calculates the denominator in an entered value adjustment decision and didn’t address concerns about the use of land prices from one Malaysian state as a benchmark for another's.

Plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation "have every intention" to appeal their case challenging the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China to the Supreme Court, Matt Nicely, lead counsel for the companies, told the Court of International Trade during a Nov. 4 status conference.

The Commerce Department can limit its comparator group in assessing whether a certain enterprise or industry is the "predominant user" of a subsidy for purposes of determining de facto specificity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 5. Judges Jimmie Reyna, Sharon Prost and Raymond Chen said the limitation on the comparator group must only be "sufficiently reasonable."