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.

DOJ is seeking nearly $15 million in unpaid customs duties and civil penalties from five Florida importers at the Court of International Trade for alleged evasion of antidumping duties, according to a May 15 complaint (U.S. v. Lexjet, et al., CIT # 23-00105).

The Court of International Trade on May 16 upheld a finding that exporter Double Coin Holdings failed to rebut the presumption of government control in an antidumping case, sustaining the company's 105.31% China-wide rate in an administrative review on off-the-road tires from China.

Importer Acquisition 362, d/b/a Strategic Import Supply (SIS), filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion requiring protests to be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP. SIS said that by establishing this requirement, the appellate court eliminated one statutory mechanism under which importers can file protests and encourages "premature, incomplete, sham protest filings" (Acquisition 362 v. U.S., U.S. # 22-1102).

The Court of International Trade ruled that exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) failed to show that the court should revisit its past order allowing four U.S. steel companies to intervene in a case on the International Trade Commission's injury determination related to imports of hot-rolled steel from Turkey. Judge Timothy Reif said the four companies champion claims that share a common question of law or fact with the case's main action, would be adversely affected if the court were to rule in Erdemir's favor and would not unduly delay the adjudication of the original parties' rights.

The U.S. reply in a scope case on Vandewater International's steel branch outlets fails to follow either scope principle established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key precedential opinion in Arcelormittal Stainless Belg. v. U.S., appellant Sigma Corp. told the appellate court in a reply brief. In violation of Arcelormittal, the government interpreted the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China in a vacuum devoid of any consideration of the way the order's language is used in the relevant industry and identified ambiguity where none exists, Sigma argued (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

The Court of International Trade should reconsider its opinion on the origin of Cyber Power Systems (USA)'s uninterruptible power supplies because the court shirked its responsibility to arrive at the correct determination, the importer said in a reply brief. Even though the trade court ruled against Cyber Power's position that its power supplies are made in the Philippines, it did not take the next step to determine the goods' actual origin, making "no findings of fact regarding manufacture in China," Cyber Power said (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 20-00124).

Arguments from the U.S. and countervailing duty petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives related to the Commerce Department's "substantially dependent" finding in the Spanish olives CVD investigation are "part predictable and part remarkable," two Spanish olive growers and a Spanish olive trade group told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a reply brief (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, Fed Cir. # 23-1162).

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a bid to stop CAFC Judge Kimberly Moore's investigation of Newman's fitness to continue serving on the court. Retaining the New Civil Liberties Alliance as counsel, Newman argued that the fitness proceedings constitute a violation of the separation of powers as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

The Court of International Trade erred in failing to grant importer Meyer Corp. first sale treatment when valuing its cookware imports, the importer told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. In one of "two major assignments of error," Meyer said CIT impermissibly rejected first sale prices based on the absence of financial information from Meyer's parent company, Meyer International Holdings (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #23-1570).