The Court of International Trade should not refer to court-annexed mediation a key customs case over whether importer Meyer Corp.'s goods qualify for first-sale treatment, nor should the court retry the issue, the U.S. said in a Dec. 30 motion. Replying to Meyer's bid for a status conference on what to do next in the case, the government said the trade court should reconsider the record before it to find whether Meyer can use the first-sale price for valuing its goods without the consideration of nonmarket economy effects as mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).

A recent Court of International Trade case that dealt with goods excluded over forced labor concerns ended "with a whimper," leaving the trade bar without any answers on how to challenge CBP forced labor detentions, Crowell & Moring lawyers wrote in a Dec. 29 blog post. Attorneys John Brew, Laurel Saito and Wing Cheung said that while the "importing community was hoping for such guidance," it will be forced to wait as it is "unlikely" that the plaintiff, Virtus Nutrition,will appeal the matter.

The Court of International Trade should reject a motion for a preliminary injunction against cash deposits in an antidumping duty case since the plaintiffs "provide no probative evidence" for the accuracy of the claims in the declarations submitted in support for the claim of irreparable harm, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 28 reply brief. Further, the plaintiffs overstate their case on the merits and overlook parts of the record that cut against its position, the government said (Grupo Acerero v. United States, CIT Consol. #22-00202).

CBP is empowered to make its own scope determinations when evaluating antidumping and countervailing duty evasions, and the Court of International Trade should therefore sustain a determination made by CBP regarding steel grating from China, the government argued in a Dec. 23 brief at the Court of International Trade. The government response comes eight months after a motion for judgment filed by importer Ikadan System USA and manufacturer Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co. (see 2204260079) because of a voluntary remand (Ikadan System USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00592).

The Commerce Department violated the law by changing the date of sale for antidumping respondent Octal's U.S. sales from the dates reported by the exporter, the company argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce should have used the date when the relevant price index was published, as reported by the respondent, rather than the invoice date for the date of sale. The result of the switch was a 3.96% dumping margin for the exporter (Octal v. U.S., CIT # 22-00352).

The Court of International Trade incorrectly classified plastic-dipped knit gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116 instead of under heading 3926, Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing argued in a Dec. 28 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1793).

The International Trade Commission and Commerce Department prematurely carried out its second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan, which led to the revocation of the orders, U.S. manufacturer Archroma argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Archroma v. U.S. Department of Commerce, CIT #22-00354).

Amendments to various rules at the Court of International Trade will take effect Jan. 23, the court said Dec. 27. The rules were announced Dec. 13. The trade court approved changes to rules 3.1, 7, 56.1, 56.2, 60 and 81; Form 24; and Standard Chambers Procedures. Many of the rules pertain to the requirement that parties submit motions for judgment and briefs in support of the motions in one single document.

A recent Court of International Trade opinion on the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case "addresses nearly identical facts" as in an AD case brought by plaintiffs Meihua Group International Trading and Xinjiang Meihua Amina Acid Co. (Meihua), the plaintiffs said in a Dec. 22 notice of supplemental authority. The recent CIT case, Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., saw the court rule that the Commerce Department improperly used AFA since the agency failed to notify the respondent about the supposed deficiencies in its submissions (see 2212020060) (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00069).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 granted exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to expedite briefing on its bid for a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty case, after the company said the "punitive" duties would put it out of business. Judge Miller Baker was assigned to the case and quickly agreed to the ramped-up briefing schedule, ordering the government to file a reply to the PI motion by Jan. 10, 2023, and telling Oman Fasteners to file any reply by Jan. 17, 2023 (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).