A World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel found the U.S. violated global trade rules by requiring goods made in Hong Kong to be marked as being made in China. Submitting its ruling Dec. 21, the three-arbitrator panel found the U.S. measures inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, saying the U.S. failed to show the moves were made in response to an "emergency in international relations." The U.S. argued the change in the origin requirement was needed to safeguard American national security.

The Commerce Department cannot set the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review by taking a simple average of a de minimis and an adverse facts available rate, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 21 opinion. Sending the case back to Commerce for the fifth time, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves cited a key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that made the same determination. The judge said that the court's rules "require the just and speedy determination of every action and proceeding," so the agency should refrain from "submitting the same unreasonable-as-applied, punitive all-others separate rate."

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 21 opinion denied U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion to intervene in a case brought by Seneca Foods Corp. on the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests. The trade court cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different Section 232 exclusion denial challenge. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that this precedent establishes that the steel maker doesn't have the right to intervene under the trade court's rules.

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 Court of International Trade should dismiss a case from importer Southern Cross Seafood involving the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) for lack of jurisdiction, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 19 motion. Measures involving the CCAMLR belong exclusively at district courts and the statute "could not be more clear," the brief said. The case challenges the National Marine Fisheries Service's decision to deny Southern Cross' application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 20 opinion denied an injunction bid pending appeal from certain plaintiffs in an attorney conflict-of interest suit. After recently rejecting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Gary Katzmann this time rejected the injunction motion pending appeal since the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "has not yet been noticed," but even if it had, the injunction "is unwarranted." Katzmann said that the plaintiffs fail to both show a "strong showing of success on the merits" and prove that they will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 ruled that the Commerce Department improperly excluded certain solar cell sales from consolidated antidumping duty respondent Inventec Solar Energy Corp.'s (ISEC's) dumping margin based on its finding that ISEC did not have any actual or constructive knowledge that its goods would ultimately end up in the United States. Judge Leo Gordon said that given "the totality of the record, the court cannot sustain as reasonable" the finding that ISEC did not have actual knowledge of the solar cells' destination.

CBP improperly found that importer Diamond Tools Technology made a "material and false" statement in the agency's Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 16 opinion. Sending the case back to CBP again, Judge Timothy Reif ruled that the agency's use of the EAPA statute is inconsistent with the law's language and structure, and even if its use was legal, its interpretation of the statute is not entitled to deference. Diamond Tools properly classified its merchandise as not covered merchandise given the guidance it had at the time, the judge said.

The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to rely on antidumping duty respondent Dillinger's books and records to find the cost of production (COP) for non-prime products, the agency said in Dec. 15 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Commerce said that relying on Dillinger's books and records, or the recorded total costs assigned to the prime and non-prime goods, was the "only reasonable approach" (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT #17-00158).

The Commerce Department properly used adverse facts available for countervailing duty respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade held in a Dec. 8 opinion made public Dec. 16. Judge Timothy Reif penned the trade court's second opinion upholding the use of AFA for the EBCP after a string of court decisions rejected the use of AFA for the program. The judge held that certain information that Commerce was not given by the Chinese government was critical to verifying non-use of the EBCP, given that the respondents' customers failed to submit non-use certifications.