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.

Foreign-trade zone goods become "importations" for duty drawback purposes when they are entered for consumption into the U.S. and not when they are admitted into an FTZ, importer King Maker Marketing told the Court of International Trade. Responding to the government's motion to dismiss the company's suit challenging the rejection of its duty drawback claims, King Maker said goods in an FTZ are considered to be outside the customs territory of the U.S., making the "date of importation" the date the goods were withdrawn from the FTZ (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).

The Commerce Department erred in finding that respondents Heze Huayi Chemical Co. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. cooperated to the best of their ability despite a failure to produce land-use purchase contracts in the 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China, petitioners led by Bio-Lab argued (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT # 24-00118).

Importer Integlobal Forest failed to convincingly argue that the Enforce and Protect Act isn't a strict liability statute, petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood argued. The coalition said both the "plain language of the statute and the overall statutory context" show that Congress didn't mean to require culpability of an importer as a "prerequisite" to an affirmative evasion finding (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).

The Commerce Department unlawfully expanded the scope of the antidumping duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Mexico when it found that Mexican exporter Deacero circumvented the order, the company argued in a Dec. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Deacero said Commerce erred in failing to address the company's claims that the agency and the International Trade Commission originally meant to exclude high-carbon steel wire from the scope of the order (Deacero v. U.S., CIT # 24-00212).

Exporter Pipe and Piling Supplies brought a complaint Dec. 27 against the Commerce Department’s administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada. The exporter, sole mandatory respondent for the review, disagreed with the department's application of total adverse facts available for the review, saying it cooperated to the best of its ability (Pipe and Piling Supplies v. United States, CIT # 24-00211).

Importer Ildico will appeal a Court of International Trade decision finding for the government in a customs classification spat on the company's watches with case backs set with watch glass made of nonprecious materials (see 2411010048). The trade court said Ildico's Richard Mille watches aren't considered to have cases made "wholly" of precious metal and thus fit under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 9102, a basket provision covering watches with composite cases. Ildico claimed its watches should have been classified under heading 9101 (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00136).

A Vietnamese frozen fish fillet exporter’s single U.S. sale wasn’t bona fide, the domestic trade group Catfish Farmers of America said Dec. 16 in a motion for judgment (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00126).

The U.S. agreed to liquidate plastic lids for vacuum-sealed drinkware imported by Yeti Coolers without Section 301 duties, the parties said in a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 26. The goods were imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3923.50.0000, dutiable at 5.3%, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which was subject to either a 10% or 25% Section 301 duty. After Yeti brought suit to challenge this classification, the government agreed to classify the goods under subheading 9617.00.6000, which covers parts of vacuum flasks and is dutiable at 7.2% but without Section 301 duties (Yeti Coolers v. U.S., CIT # 21-00526).

Importer Trimil voluntarily dismissed 17 customs cases at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 27. The company brought the cases to challenge CBP's decision to appraise its apparel imports at the prices paid with royalties included (see 2112150046). Counsel for the importer said the cases were settled with CBP (Trimil v. U.S., CIT #s 05-00443, 05-00677, 06-00145, 06-00295, 07-00004, 07-00235, 07-00416, 08-00110, 08-00309, 09-00117, 09-00328, 09-00539, 10-00202, 10-00378, 11-00155, 11-00418, 12-00383).