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.

Importer BASF Corporation will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the proper tariff classification of BASF's food additive Betatene. In an August ruling, the trade court said the importer's product was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a dietary supplement (see 2509050057). CIT Judge Lisa Wang said that the products weren’t general-use “provitamins,” as BASF argued, because the preparation they underwent for tableting made them not suitable for general commercial use. BASF will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIt # 12-00422).

The International Trade Commission failed to adequately consider "key market data" when reaching an affirmative critical circumstances determination in the injury proceeding on low speed personal transportation vehicles from China, importer Vexas, doing business as Atlas, said in an Oct. 14 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Vexas v. United States, CIT # 25-00206).

The Commerce Department erred in its selection of a benchmark to value a subsidized lease provided to countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's affiliate, Nur Gemicilik, Kaptan argued in an Oct. 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 25-00225).

In two complaints filed Oct. 10, petitioner The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition challenged the antidumping duty investigation on Chinese-origin golf carts, saying the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission should both have found critical circumstances with regard to an exporter (The American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00203, 25-00204).

In an Oct. 14 complaint, domestic brake drum producer Webb Wheel Products argued that the Commerce Department used the wrong surrogate value for a mandatory respondent’s “recarburizing agent” in its antidumping duty investigation on brake drums from China (Webb Wheel Products v. United States, CIT # 25-00207).

Two trade associations -- the National Fisheries Institute and the Restaurant Law Center -- and 10 seafood importers challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings of 240 fisheries across 46 nations (see 2509020014), which will lead to an import ban on all seafood products from these fisheries effective Jan. 1, 2026, at the Court of International Trade (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).

The Court of International Trade's CM/ECF system will undergo maintenance Oct. 18 from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. EDT, the court announced. The court said the CM/ECF system will not be available during this time.

Challenging an affirmative antidumping duty determination regarding Chinese brake drums, an importer and exporter said Oct. 10 that the Commerce Department failed to properly value the sole mandatory respondent’s inland freight costs and scrap recycling process (Consolidated Metco v. United States, CIT # 25-00208).

The Commerce Department improperly attributed freight and marine insurance income to antidumping duty respondent Suncity Metals and Tubes during the 2022-23 administrative review of the AD order on Indian-origin welded stainless pressure pipe, the respondent argued in an Oct. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Suncity Metals and Tubes v. United States, CIT # 25-00222).