Various solar cell exporters and importers defended their right to intervene in a Court of International Trade lawsuit on the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian nations found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China. Filing a pair of reply briefs, the exporters and importers said they have the right to intervene since they have an "interest in the property or transaction at issue" (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Commerce Department has been illegally expanding the reach of an antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China over years of scope rulings for different parties, a textile company argued in a Feb. 26 motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (Printing Textiles d/b/a/ Berger Textiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).

Turkish exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's decision on the date of sale of Kaptan's goods in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

CBP imposed interim restrictions on an importer without informing it of an ongoing Enforce and Protect Act investigation, then put partly confidential information on the record without notice so that the importer couldn’t rebut it, that importer said in a Feb. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Superior Commercial Solutions LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00052).

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 Feb. 26 issued an amended decision in a customs case on the tariff classification of five categories of chrome-plated plastic automobile parts after initially deciding the case Dec. 18. The new decision adds a discussion of axle covers, the fifth category of goods, finding them to fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8708 pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 1.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision that Indonesian data is not economically comparable to Vietnam as part of its surrogate country selection process, along with the agency's consideration of evidence pertaining to exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company's production information.

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over an importer’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it has previously ruled that an administrative protest against an entry’s liquidation cannot be brought before the liquidation has occurred, that importer said in a brief contesting the U.S. motion to dismiss (Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00063).

Importer Seneca Foods Corp. opposed the U.S. attempt to extend the deadline to file its remand results in a suit on the Commerce Department's decision to reject the company's requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The government asked for another 31 days to file its remand decision after initially being given 90 days to conduct the remand and a 45-day extension (Seneca Foods Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00243).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a Feb. 26 confidential order in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina. In a letter to the parties, Judge Claire Kelly said it's her intention to issue a public version of the opinion on or shortly after March 5, giving the parties until March 4 to review the confidential information. In the remand results, Commerce continued to use respondent Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for the cost of production of beekeeper supplies (see 2310130049). The agency also struck by its decision to compare Nexco's U.S. sale prices with normal values based on Nexco's third-country sale prices to Germany on a monthly basis instead of a quarterly basis (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).