The Court of International Trade on Aug. 13 sustained the Commerce Department's countervailing duties on ribbon exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows pertaining to its reception of synthetic yarn and caustic soda, two ribbon inputs, for less than adequate remuneration. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce adequately used adverse facts available in multiple instances of the subsidy analysis due to the Chinese government's failure to respond to the agency to the best of its ability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Aug. 13 opinion again affirmed the president's ability to make trade-restrictive modifications to Section 201 safeguard tariffs. Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark partially granted a group of solar cell exporters' motion for panel rehearing of its 2023 decision, which came to the same conclusion, so that the court could conduct a de novo review of the applicable statute, instead of reviewing whether the president's interpretation of the law was a "clear misconstruction" of the statute.

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.

Antidumping duty petitioner American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department erred in making an adjustment for AD respondent Rajhans Metal's claimed work-in-process (WIP) and in valuing the company's scrap offset. Filing a complaint Aug. 9, the petitioner contested Rajhans' 2.19% AD rate set in the investigation on brass rod from India (American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 24-00119).

Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 claiming CBP failed to provide the company with a "statement of reasons" for the denial of its protest concerning its passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. The company said protest denial was improper because it centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which the importer wasn't given access to (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00149).

Three wildlife advocacy groups took to the Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 to contest the collective failure of the Commerce, Treasury and Homeland Security departments and the National Marine Fisheries Service to ban fish or fish products exported from fisheries that don't meet U.S. bycatch standards under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Gina Raimondo, CIT # 24-00148).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 said anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) doesn't have standing to challenge CBP's inaction in responding to a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire. Judge Claire Kelly said IRAdvocates failed to show that CBP's inaction "has harmed a core business or diminished any asset."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 7 said the Commerce Department's use of only adverse facts available rates to set the rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping proceedings, known as the "expected method," is not presumptively unreasonable. Judges Alan Lourie and Kara Stoll said instead that the "burden is on Commerce to justify a departure from the expected method, not to justify its use."

The U.S. said the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, "is not pertinent" to the massive lawsuit on the validity of the lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

After its bid for a preliminary injunction was denied by Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly (see 2407260045), a customs broker fought Aug. 5 against a motion to dismiss its case, saying its complaint was ripe for litigation because CBP had already made the decision to deny its reinstatement to the agency's Entry Type 86 pilot (Seko Customs Brokerage v. United States, CIT # 24-00097).