Petitioner Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Committee will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (see 2510090016). The trade court said the exclusion of the bricks comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders. The case was filed by Fedmet to contest the scope ruling, which came after a referral in an AD/CVD evasion case, on 11 of Fedmet's brick types. After CIT initially remanded the case to address the CAFC ruling, Commerce said seven of Fedmet's brick types are excluded from the order, since they have a non-zero alumina content (Fedmet Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).

Eight more cases have been filed at the Court of International Trade contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act following oral argument at the Supreme Court in the lead cases on the issue, during which many of the justices expressed skepticism over the validity of such tariffs.

In a Nov. 11 motion for judgment, a wind tower petitioner said that the Commerce Department’s administrative review of the antidumping duty order on South Korean utility-scale wind towers wrongly failed to adjust a respondent’s conversion costs and erred in constructing the respondent’s value using, in part, information dating back to when that respondent wasn’t profitable (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00104).

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 Commerce Department erred in picking Germany as the comparison market for determining antidumping duty respondent Prochamp's normal value in the AD investigation on mushrooms from the Netherlands, petitioner Giorgio Foods told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Giorgio contested the four bases on which Commerce made its decision to use Germany as the comparison market, arguing that each isn't backed by substantial evidence (Giorgio Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2090).

The Commerce Department "exceeded its legal authority" in an anti-circumvention case "by imposing a blanket origin finding" on aluminum wire and cable exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable when it barred the company from taking part in the agency's program for certifying that an exporter's inputs weren't of Chinese origin, Tanghenam argued in a Nov. 11 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 12 granted the government's motion for default judgment in a customs penalty suit against importer Rago Tires, imposing a $14,108.87 civil penalty against the company. Judge Joseph Laroski found that Rago violated customs laws "by means of negligence" and not gross negligence, as the U.S. argued. The judge said that although the company's filing error, in which it failed to declare its goods were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties, was "material," the facts don't show "willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct."

A group of seven importers, led by Innovative Eyewear, is the filer of another lawsuit challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, following the Supreme Court's oral argument in the lead cases on the issue in which many of the justices appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. The lawsuit is the fourth of its kind to be filed at the Court of International Trade in the wake of the oral argument as importers go to court to ensure they have access to refunds should the high court strike down President Donald Trump's reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs (see 2511060015) (Innovative Eyewear v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00247).

Court of International Trade Judge Mark Barnett stayed Oct. 31 a case brought by Aloha Pencil Company opposing the recission of an antidumping duty review on cased pencils from China. He said he wants a joint status report from Aloha and the government regarding whether the trade court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case (Aloha Pencil Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00102).

In another new injury determination on remand, the International Trade Commission again “either ignores or glosses over” rainy conditions during the investigation period and evidence that domestic phosphate fertilizer producers refused to sell to certain U.S. customers, telling customers to import the product instead, exporters led by Eurochem and Phosagro said on Nov. 7 (OCP S.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).