A review of the administrative record behind the addition of Ninestar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List shows the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) had no basis for the listing, Ninestar argued in a Dec. 15 brief in support of its bid for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that the Commerce Department could use one antidumping mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to construct another’s profit, selling expenses and profit cap. In a case filed in May 2022 and voluntarily remanded to Commerce in June of this year, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld Commerce’s use of SeAH Steel Corp.’s third-country sales in calculating a constructed export price for Hyundai Steel in a 2020 administrative review. She also upheld the agency's use of that export price in setting the AD duty for all non-individually examined respondents. The review had assigned a 19.54% AD duty for Hyundai, a 3.85% duty for SeAH and an 11.70% all-others rate.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion sustained the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury findings on mattresses from Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam. Judge Stephen Vaden said ITC's errors, which included "mathematical obfuscation and statistical chicanery" regarding claims that the mattress industry was more segmented than the commission believed, were harmless. Despite the errors, the commission "made the necessary findings to have its decision supported by substantial evidence," the opinion said.

Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."

Importer CHR. Hansen filed a notice of dismissal in its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 12. The company filed the case in December 2021 to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its probiotics powder of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2106.90.9897, dutiable at 6.4%, should be classified under subheading 3002.90.1000. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (CHR. Hansen v. United States, CIT # 21-00636).

Exporter Canadian Solar International Limited filed a Dec. 15 notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade in its case challenging the Commerce Department's anti-circumvention finding on solar panels from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. In the proceeding, Commerce found that solar panels from these nations are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00195).

DOJ said an exporter waived its ability to object to the new results of an administrative review after remand, arguing it didn't adequately take advantage of its ability to comment on the review before the court (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00402).

A visit the Commerce Department made to a domestic tile manufacturer prior to a scope ruling on imported composite tile was proper and didn't bias Commerce in favor of the manufacturer in its final decision, DOJ said (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).

Importer Amsted Rail Co. and its Mexican maquiladora affiliate ASF-K de Mexico again brought conflict-of-interest claims to the Court of International Trade involving the International Trade Commission's injury finding on freight rail couplers from Mexico. The Dec. 15 complaint was brought alongside its lawsuit against the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation (see 2311210077) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).

The Court of International Trade wouldn't be able to "effectuate its judgment" without the authority to order reliquidation past the applicable 90-day time frame, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 15 reply brief. Defending the trade court's dismissal of retail giant Target's suit against a court-ordered reliquidation of Target entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate, the U.S. distinguished the spat from Cemex v. U.S., in which the Federal Circuit barred reliquidation (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).