A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded to the Court of International Trade for the second time a case on Meyer Corp.'s use of first sale. The ruling, issued Dec. 13, orders the CIT to once again consider whether CBP was wrong to reject the first-sale price submitted to the agency by Meyer, based on the price paid by distributors in Macau to a Thai manufacturer and by distributors in Hong Kong to a Chinese manufacturer. The manufacturers, distributors and importers share the same parent company -- Meyer International Holdings, Ltd.

The United Steelworkers labor union again (see 2409050044) said Dec. 10 that an exporter’s temporary-use spare tires should have been covered by an antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan, in a motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00165).

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 U.S. defended its motion to dismiss importer Retractable Technologies' suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 duty hike on needles and syringes, claiming that the Court of International Trade either doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Retractable's claims or that the company failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

The Commerce Department adequately explained its finding that it had sufficient industry support to launch the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 10. After previously remanding the issue, Judge Claire Kelly held that the agency sufficiently addressed evidence contrary to its conclusion.

The U.S. on Dec. 9 sought default judgment at the Court of International Trade against importer Rago Tires in its customs penalty suit against the company for failing to pay antidumping and countervailing duties on truck and bus tires from China. The government brought the suit in February, alleging that Rago was grossly negligent in avoiding the AD/CVD (see 2402210061). The U.S. said it served the company's "principal and registered agent" a copy of the summons and complaint but has received no response. As a result, since the deadline to respond has lapsed, the government requested default judgment of $56,435.48 for the gross negligence claim (United States v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).

The U.S. defended the Commerce Department’s controversial enforcement of strict deadlines in another case Dec. 5, saying that the missed Dec. 26, 2022, deadline had been “clearly stated” by Commerce and acknowledged by the exporter (Jindal Poly Films v. U.S., CIT # 24-00053).

In a Dec. 3 motion for judgment before the Court of International Trade, domestic producer Edsal Manufacturing again (see 2407120060) said that the Commerce Department should have used the more comparable surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation on boltless steel shelves from Thailand (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).

The government's cause of action against a surety runs from the date the surety breached the demand for payment on a customs bond and not from the date of liquidation, or deemed liquidation, of the underlying entries covered by the bond, the U.S. argued. Filing a cross-motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 9, the U.S. said it timely filed its case because the suit was brought within six years from the date surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. was delinquent on an over $100,000 bill for unpaid duties (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

Surety firm American Alternative Insurance Corp. filed a cross-claim in a customs penalty suit brought by the U.S. against importer Repwire, its manager Jose Pigna and the surety. On Dec. 9, American Alternative Insurance told the Court of International Trade that Repwire and Pigna should be compelled to pay the over $13 million penalty and that the company and its manager "are obligated to indemnify" the insurance company for the amount of duties and fees being demanded (United States v. Repwire, CIT # 24-00173).