The U.S. misread the statute governing deemed liquidation for drawback claims to create exception to the rule where none exists, importer Performance Additives argued Dec. 26 (Performance Additives v. United States, CIT # 22-00044).

Antidumping duty petitioner the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group argued in a new lawsuit at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department "improperly calculated" exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's duty drawback adjustment (The Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group v. United States, CIT # 23-00251).

The Court of International Trade has made changes to its fee schedule that will take effect Jan. 22, the court announced. The court's attorney admission fee (the original admission of an attorney to practice) will now be $199, up from $88, while applications to appear pro hac vice, which previously were free, will now cost $75. Renewal of admission registrations will be due every five years, along with a $75 fee, up from $50. Duplicate certificates of admission or certificates of good standing will cost $45, up from $20. Additionally, U.S. government attorneys requesting a certificate of their admission to the trade bar will now pay $45 for the certificate to be printed, instead of $88. Because they can't be charged a fee for admission to practice before CIT, the certificates aren't automatically generated. The fee changes were approved Dec. 12.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 22 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case in which the agency was told to verify a Thai mattress importer's data "insofar as the Department relied upon that data." Judge M. Miller Baker noted because the importer, Saffron Living Co., withdrew from the case and no remaining party opposes the remand results, the court will uphold the results and the associated 763.28% antidumping duty rate for Saffron.

The International Trade Commission isn't required to rule specifically on underselling in injury investigations -- it only needs to consider it, the Court of International Trade said last week. CIT also said overselling of a product by importers does not necessarily mean domestic producers’ prices haven't been impacted.

Plaintiffs in the massive ongoing Section 301 litigation "ignore" the president's role in imposing the China tariffs, the U.S. said last week, arguing that the thousands of companies leading the case would have the court impose an improper standard of review (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

Exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. failed to raise arguments on the surrogate value of bituminous coal in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 21. Judge Mark Barnett said that despite Jilin Bright's argument, "this case fits squarely into the classic administrative exhaustion paradigm."

The International Trade Commission asked the Court of International Trade to temporarily redact its decision sustaining an injury determination on mattresses since the commission believes there to be business proprietary information in the opinion that may need to be redacted (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288).

An importer seeking to compel the government to provide addresses of former CBP employees and underacted versions of documents handed over during discovery didn't show the sufficient need for, or relevance of, either, DOJ said Dec. 20 (Lutron Electronics v. U.S.​​​​, CIT # 22-00264).

CBP can't extend liquidation without giving a reason, a solar panel company argued at the Court of International Trade Dec. 14 (Greentech Energy Solutions v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00118.)