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.

Antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners opened a lawsuit last week against its former counsel, Perkins Coie, for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty in its representation of the exporter in AD proceedings on steel nails from Oman. Filing suit in Washington state court, Oman Fasteners centered on two alleged mistakes made by the Perkins Coie attorneys: the failure to submit a fully translated surrogate financial statement in the AD investigation and to meet a filing deadline in the sixth review of the AD order, which led to a total adverse facts available AD rate.

The Commerce Department reasonably decided not to attribute subsidies provided to Nur Gemicilik, an affiliated input supplier of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir, to Kaptan itself in the 2018 CVD review on Turkish rebar, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Nov. 17. Judges Raymond Chen, Richard Linn and Todd Hughes said Commerce properly identified that the unprocessed steel scrap Nur provided Kaptan was a "common input" and that the agency didn't place undue weight on consideration of Nur's main business activity.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 17 held that five types of medical foods imported by Nutricia North America are properly classified as "medicaments" and not as "food preparations." Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark overruled the Court of International Trade's decision, which came to the opposite conclusion, finding that Nutricia's products are properly found to be medicaments under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3004.50.5040.

President Donald Trump may look to ramp up his use of sections 232 and 301 should the Supreme Court rule that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act can't be used for levying tariffs, various lawyers told us. However, the expanded use of these statutes, both as they are being used now and how they may be used to supplant the existing reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs, may encounter legal difficulties.

DOJ has increasingly relied on an undervaluation theory for trade enforcement cases brought under the False Claims Act in its increased attempt to police trade fraud and may be looking to include "corporate integrity agreements" as part of trade-related FCA settlements, attorneys at Faegre Drinker said during a Nov. 13 webinar that focused on increased trade enforcement.

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 held that the deadline for filing a complaint isn't a jurisdictional issue. As a result, Judge Richard Eaton said he had the power to vacate the dismissal of a case from various exporters in an antidumping duty case, which was issued due to the exporters' failure to timely file a complaint.

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 erred in picking Germany as the comparison market for determining antidumping duty respondent Prochamp's normal value in the AD investigation on mushrooms from the Netherlands, petitioner Giorgio Foods told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Giorgio contested the four bases on which Commerce made its decision to use Germany as the comparison market, arguing that each isn't backed by substantial evidence (Giorgio Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2090).

The Commerce Department "exceeded its legal authority" in an anti-circumvention case "by imposing a blanket origin finding" on aluminum wire and cable exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable when it barred the company from taking part in the agency's program for certifying that an exporter's inputs weren't of Chinese origin, Tanghenam argued in a Nov. 11 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).