The Solar Energy Industries Association urged the Court of International Trade to not allow CBP to reliquidate entries of solar panels that were subject to a preliminary injunction from CIT, saying during oral arguments this week that there's not a strong enough reason to reverse CBP's inadvertent liquidation. The U.S. argued that a court order was needed to "effectuate" the court's suspension of liquidation and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in the case (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).

The U.S. on Feb. 11 filed a motion to strike as misleading a chemical manufacturer’s recent citation of a CBP letter, saying it was “a decision from a separate proceeding, issued by a separate agency” that had been brought up without sufficient prior notice (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).

Litigants in a lawsuit on a drawback claim told the Court of International Trade in a joint status report that they don't believe the case is "amenable to mediation," though they said they are discussing whether the suit can be settled through a "stipulated judgment on agreed statement of facts." The plaintiff, individual importer Timothy Brown, said he gave the U.S. a "proposed stipulated judgment," which the U.S. is reviewing (Timothy Brown v. United States, CIT # 20-03733).

Japanese exporter Nippon Steel argued Feb. 7 that the standard that respondents comply with antidumping and countervailing duty reviews to the best of their ability doesn’t require respondents to break their own governments’ laws (Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00533).

In response Feb. 10 to a steel labor union’s December motion for judgment (see 2412110059), the U.S. defended a Commerce Department scope ruling that temporary-use tires weren’t subject to antidumping duties on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, saying the union hadn’t exhausted its administrative remedies (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).

The Commerce Department permissibly refused to offer exporter East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company separate rate status in the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on catfish from Vietnam, petitioner Catfish Farmers of America argued in a Feb. 10 brief supporting Commerce's remand results. The petitioner said that while the Court of International Trade relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Yanghzou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. U.S. to remand the issue, legal developments since Bestpak have called into question the relevance of the decision (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00092).

Indian exporter Jindal Poly Films said Feb. 10 that the government was wrong to claim that an employee’s “severe illness” wasn’t a “medical emergency” that justified an untimely filing extension request. Overall, it said, the Commerce Department’s rejection of that request was the result of an analysis that was “riddled with errors” (Jindal Poly Films v. United States, CIT # 24-00053).

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.

In a motion for judgment, exporter CS Wind Malaysia again said the Commerce Department should have adjusted its manufacturing costs for a production stoppage throughout most of the period of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order (see 2409090008) (CS Wind Malaysia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00150).

The Court of International Trade reassigned a case on importer Meyer Corp.'s claim for first sale valuation on its cookware imports, from Judge Thomas Aquilino to Judge Richard Eaton. In his first decision in the case, Aquilino questioned whether first sale valuation could be used for goods coming from non-market economies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said CBP has no basis to consider a nation's NME status when deciding whether to grant first sale treatment, sending the case back for consideration of Meyer's shipments (see 2208110060). In his second opinion, Aquilino said the imports at issue don't quality for first sale treatment due to the failure of Meyer's parent company, Meyer International Holdings, to submit financial information (see 2302090053). This decision is now before the Federal Circuit again, which held oral argument in September 2024 (see 2409040034) (Meyer Corp. v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).