CBP illegally failed to refund excess antidumping duty cash deposits totaling over $490,000, importer Marubeni-Itochu Steel America argued in a Jan. 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it failed to suspend liquidation of the entries, hold the cash deposits in suspense and issue a prompt refund, the importer claimed (Marubeni-Itochu Steel America v. United States, CIT # 23-00004).

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)

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 20 opinion made public Jan. 4 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in a case involving the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In its remand results, Commerce changed how it determined surrogate values for silver paste, a solar cell input, while revising its use of adverse facts available, choosing to use partial neutral facts available. The agency stuck by its positions, however, on which surrogate values to use for backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA). Judge Claire Kelly found these positions to be reasonable.

The Commerce Department properly found that it had enough industry support to kick off the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations into quartz surface products from India, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a Jan. 5 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade's ruling, Judges Kimberly Moore, Alan Lourie and Sharon Prost ruled that Commerce permissibly found that the term "producer" did not include quartz surface product fabricators and that the agency backed its finding that fabricators are not producers with substantial evidence via its six-factor production-related activities test.

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 properly tapped India as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review on frozen fish filets from Vietnam, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from Catfish Farmers of America vying for Indonesia to be the primary surrogate country, the government said that these claims do not undermine the choice of India and at most just seek to include Indonesia in the list of countries under consideration for the primary surrogate country (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, CIT # 20-00105).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2022. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.

The Commerce Department illegally failed to give exporter Goodluck India a chance to request a review after it was reinstated as subject to an antidumping duty order, Goodluck argued in a Jan. 3 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. After the trade court settled a jurisdictional issue in the case, the exporter in a new motion for judgment argued that Commerce violated the law by assessing duties at the adverse facts available rate and deciding that the AFA cash deposit rate became effective on Sept. 10, 2021 -- 10 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provisionally revoked the order as to Goodluck (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT # 22-00024).

The Commerce Department illegally expanded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by "reading ambiguity into the scope language when there is none," plaintiffs Vietnam Finewood, Far East American and Liberty Woods International argued in a Dec. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The scope language clearly states there is only one category of in-scope product -- hardwood and decorative plywood -- although the U.S. says there are two general types -- hardwood and decorative plywood and certain veneered panels -- though the latter category is "not in the scope language at all," the plaintiffs said (Vietnam Finewood Company Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00049).

The Court of International Trade should not refer to court-annexed mediation a key customs case over whether importer Meyer Corp.'s goods qualify for first-sale treatment, nor should the court retry the issue, the U.S. said in a Dec. 30 motion. Replying to Meyer's bid for a status conference on what to do next in the case, the government said the trade court should reconsider the record before it to find whether Meyer can use the first-sale price for valuing its goods without the consideration of nonmarket economy effects as mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).