Congress gave the Commerce Department wide latitude to go after "masked" dumping, the Court of International Trade said in a decision made public Nov. 15 that upheld the agency's differential pricing analysis.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judges Kimberly Moore and Richard Taranto probed claims from both exporter Oman Fasteners and the U.S. during oral argument in a suit on the Commerce Department's selection of a surrogate financial statement in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order on steel nails from Oman (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1039).

Defending its motion for judgment (see 2405300059), a paint nozzle parts importer again said Nov. 13 that its products are “fabricated heat sinks made from aluminum extrusions” and that they do have specified thermal performance requirements (Wagner Spray Tech Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00241).

Nvidia CMP 170 HX graphics processing units should be excluded from Section 301 tariffs on China, importer Atlas Power argued in a Nov. 13 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).

The Commerce Department prorated the countervailing duty set on exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. in the countervailing duty investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China to account for the percentage of its U.S. customers that failed to verify nonuse of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00110).

Exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xiang) Industry Co. has no statutory or constitutional standing to challenge CBP's issuance of or refusal to modify the withhold release order on silica-based products made by its parent company Hoshine Silicon or its subsidiaries, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 8, the government said Hoshine offered an incorrect "zone of interests" analysis to bolster its claim of statutory standing (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00048).

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 failed to take anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates' (IRAdvocates') allegations as true when ruling on whether the group had standing to challenge CBP's inaction on a petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire, IRAdvocates argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 12. The advocacy group said it suffered injury-in-fact, since CBP's "failure to enforce Section 307" deprived the group of a "major tool in its foundational purpose of ending forced child labor in cocoa harvesting" (International Rights Advocates v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to amend the preliminary injunction in a suit challenging certain Section 301 action on needles and syringes to reflect the government's stipulation that they will refund any Section 301 duties found to have been unlawfully collected on importer Retractable Technologies' entries. Retractable consented to the move (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 7 sharply questioned both exporter Oman Fasteners' missed deadline in an antidumping duty review and petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire's defense of the 154.33% adverse facts available rate imposed as a result. Judge Kimberly Moore led the way during oral argument, taking Oman Fasteners' attorney Michael Huston to task for seemingly hiding the missed deadline (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).