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.

In a 18,700-word opposition brief, the U.S. attempted to derail a full-throttle attack brought by importers Wabtec Corp. and Strato against the International Trade Commission’s affirmative injury finding for freight rail couplers from China (Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).

Tire exporter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations filed a 10-count complaint at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 23, challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available against the company in the antidumping duty investigation on truck and bus tires from Thailand (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).

The U.S. Dec. 16 supported its motion to dismiss the amended complaint of aluminum rod importer Prysmian Cables and Systems, saying that the importer’s arguments failed to state a claim, aren’t subject to the “continuing violation doctrine” and don’t have a six-year statute of limitations (Prysmian Cables and Systems v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) improperly rejected 63 Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests filed by California-based importer Mirror Metals, the company argued in a Dec. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Mirror Metals said that if BIS applied the standards laid out in its regulations, the "only reasonable conclusion" it could have drawn was that the company "cannot obtain the subject steel in the U.S. market in a sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT # 24-00260).

Domestic producers do have standing to bring their case challenging emergency duty relief granted to solar cell importers to the trade court, those producers, led by Auxin Solar, said Dec. 19 (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel's bid to amend a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case to not enjoin the liquidation of steel trailer wheels that the Commerce Department has found to fall outside the scope of the relevant AD/CVD orders. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Lionshead failed to "demonstrate changed circumstances that warrant the modification of the preliminary injunction."

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 20 sustained the Commerce Department's use of surrogate financial statements from Emirates Sleep Systems Private Limited in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam, despite various objections from exporters led by Ashley Furniture Industries. Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce reasonably found the statements to be complete, publicly available and the best information available.

The Commerce Department adjusted exporter Trina Solar’s U.S. price in an antidumping duty review for subsidies from three programs it had countervailed in an accompanying countervailing duty review, finding, after remand, that the programs were export-contingent. It again declined to adjust Trina’s U.S. price by three other programs (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 declined to grant victory to G&H Diversified Manufacturing on the importer's claims that CBP previously, as part of its role in granting a Section 232 duty exclusion, already said the company's imports were subject to the exclusion. Judge Timothy Reif said open questions of fact still exist with regard to the extent of CBP's role in the exclusion process.