Any plaintiff in the massive Section 301 litigation looking to dismiss their case must comply with the court's rules to file a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the case, the Court of International Trade said in a text-only order. The court clarified that this rule, USCIT Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), applies in the present action since the U.S. filed a Master Answer in the overarching test case, meaning the answer is considered to be filed in each Section 301 case "now pending or hereafter filed" in the court. Certain companies have begun dismissing their challenges to the China tariffs following the trade court's ruling that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not violate the law when implementing them (see 2303170063) (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).

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 on May 22 upheld the Commerce Department's finding that both Guizhou Tyre Co. (GTC) and Double Coin Holdings failed to rebut the presumption of Chinese government control in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from China. Despite Commerce's "inartful and internally-inconsistent approach" to the question of whether a company majority-owned by a government entity could ever prove to be free of government control, Judge Timothy Stanceu said the agency did enough to show that Double Coin did not pick its managers independently of the government-owned shareholder.

The Court of International Trade appeared in a May 22 decision to sympathize with the idea that the Commerce Department should have taken into account a cooperative China-wide exporter's own data to recalculate the China-wide rate in an antidumping review, but ultimately the court declined to remand for a recalculation because the exporter had requested a remand to make it a separate rate respondent, not to review the China-wide entity.

The Court of International Trade granted importer DSM Food Specialties USA's voluntary bid to dismiss its case challenging the classification of its CaroCare beta-carotene in 30% oil suspension form. The company filed suit in 2005 to argue that the imports should be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2936.90.000, free of duty, rather than subheading 2106.90.9998, dutiable at 6.4% (DSM Food Specialties USA v. United States, CIT # 05-00043).

Importer DS Services on May 19 asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss a case it brought challenging the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's decision not to reinstate a Section 301 tariff exclusion on water coolers even after the only opposing party on record withdrew its opposition comments. The company argued USTR violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to both explain its decision and to back it with substantial evidence. USTR then requested a voluntary remand to reconsider (see 2209010023) but stuck by its decision in its December remand results (see 2212150043). DS Services declined to comment on the dismissal request (DS Services of America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00157).

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. asked the Court of International Trade to hold oral argument in its suit on the Commerce Department's denials of the company's Section 232 exclusion requests for tin mill products. Seneca said that oral argument is "appropriate" since resolution of the matter is "important to Seneca and its business operations" and "presents important questions about the manner in which Commerce administers the Section 232 tariff exclusion process as a whole." Oral argument would allow for a "deeper analysis" of the key issues in the proceeding, the importer said. The government took no position on the motion (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).

The Commerce Department’s determination that the South Korean government did not subsidize Hyundai Steel by providing electricity for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) was correct and the government-provided cost data was not "tainted," the South Korean government said in a May 19 motion at the Court of International Trade (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00170).

The Commerce Department should have at least allowed Japanese steel exporter Tokyo Steel to participate in an antidumping review on hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan as a voluntary respondent, importer Optima Steel International said in a May complaint at the Court of International Trade, arguing Commerce improperly chose only one respondent in the review (Optima Steel International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00108).

The Court of International Trade recently upheld the Commerce Department's finding that exporter Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co. (Shantou Processing) was not the successor-in-interest to Red Garden Food Processing Co. (Red Garden), which subjected the exporter to antidumping duties on frozen warmwater shrimp from China.