NEW YORK -- Three judges at the Court of International Trade offered tips to practitioners arguing before the court during an event at the court's judicial conference earlier this month. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, Claire Kelly and Gary Katzmann discussed tips for brief writing, oral argument and filing extension requests, laying out personal preferences and common areas where counsel goes wrong.

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Oct. 23 sustained the Commerce Department's rejection of eight Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests from importer Seneca Foods Corp. Judge Gary Katzmann said the rejections were backed by substantial evidence after Commerce addressed various emails submitted by Seneca to show U.S. Steel's alleged inability to make tin mill products in sufficient quantity to satisfy the importer's needs. Katzmann added that Commerce's focus on "prospective evidence of steel production" is in line with the tariff's purpose and effect.

The Commerce Department released its remand results Oct. 18 in a case regarding the antidumping duty review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, maintaining its earlier determinations but providing more detailed analyses for each (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00125).

The Commerce Department failed to explain its use of an inter-quarter comparison in a differential pricing analysis but not in a margin calculation, despite being told to do so by the Court of International Trade in a remand order, exporters argued Oct. 18 (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).

The Commerce Department was right to make a Vietnam-wide determination that exporters were circumventing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar panels from China on the basis of an affirmative finding for 10 respondents, the U.S. argued Oct. 21 (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00228).

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.

Surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. argued on Oct. 21 that the government's action seeking to collect unpaid duties on a Chinese honey entry imported in 2002 is barred by the statute of limitations or CBP's failure to issue the bill for the duties within a reasonable amount of time. Should either of these theories fall short, Aegis said it's entitled to judgment due to CBP's "inordinate and inexcusable delay in billing Aegis" and the fact that its reinsurer went insolvent, among other confounding factors, the company said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

Responding to petitioners’ pushback (see 2409270050) against new results on remand that saw the Commerce Department lower a Brazilian honey exporter’s antidumping duty rate from 83.72% to 10.52%, the U.S. said it supports the results (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 21 in a confidential decision sustained the Commerce Department's denials of all eight of importer Seneca Foods Corp.'s requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. Judge Gary Katzmann gave the parties until Oct. 22 to review the confidential information in the decision. Katzmann previously remanded the exclusion rejection on the grounds the Bureau of Industry and Security failed to address contradicting evidence that the U.S. industry couldn't timely provide the importer's tin mill products (see 2310180052). On remand, BIS stuck with its rejections of the exclusion requests, finding that U.S. Steel can make the same products in a sufficient quantity and in a timely manner to satisfy Seneca's needs (see 2404020047) (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 18 granted the voluntary dismissal of importer LE Commodities' challenge to the Commerce Department's rejection of its requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs (LE Commodities v. U.S., CIT # 23-00220).