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 Commerce Department properly tapped India as the primary surrogate country in an antidumping duty review on frozen fish filets from Vietnam, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Responding to arguments from Catfish Farmers of America vying for Indonesia to be the primary surrogate country, the government said that these claims do not undermine the choice of India and at most just seek to include Indonesia in the list of countries under consideration for the primary surrogate country (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, CIT # 20-00105).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2022. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.

The Commerce Department illegally failed to give exporter Goodluck India a chance to request a review after it was reinstated as subject to an antidumping duty order, Goodluck argued in a Jan. 3 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. After the trade court settled a jurisdictional issue in the case, the exporter in a new motion for judgment argued that Commerce violated the law by assessing duties at the adverse facts available rate and deciding that the AFA cash deposit rate became effective on Sept. 10, 2021 -- 10 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provisionally revoked the order as to Goodluck (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT # 22-00024).

The Commerce Department illegally expanded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China by "reading ambiguity into the scope language when there is none," plaintiffs Vietnam Finewood, Far East American and Liberty Woods International argued in a Dec. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The scope language clearly states there is only one category of in-scope product -- hardwood and decorative plywood -- although the U.S. says there are two general types -- hardwood and decorative plywood and certain veneered panels -- though the latter category is "not in the scope language at all," the plaintiffs said (Vietnam Finewood Company Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00049).

The Court of International Trade should not refer to court-annexed mediation a key customs case over whether importer Meyer Corp.'s goods qualify for first-sale treatment, nor should the court retry the issue, the U.S. said in a Dec. 30 motion. Replying to Meyer's bid for a status conference on what to do next in the case, the government said the trade court should reconsider the record before it to find whether Meyer can use the first-sale price for valuing its goods without the consideration of nonmarket economy effects as mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Meyer Corporation v. United States, CIT # 13-00154).

The Court of International Trade incorrectly classified plastic-dipped knit gloves under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 6116 instead of under heading 3926, Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing argued in a Dec. 28 brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1793).

The International Trade Commission and Commerce Department prematurely carried out its second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Taiwan, which led to the revocation of the orders, U.S. manufacturer Archroma argued in a Dec. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Archroma v. U.S. Department of Commerce, CIT #22-00354).

The Court of International Trade has the jurisdiction to hear an Enforce and Protect Act case even though the entries in question have liquidated, plaintiff-appellants Ascension Chemicals, UMD Solutions, Crude Chem Technology and Glob Energy told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 27 opening brief. "Absurd results would also surely follow if the CIT does not have jurisdiction over liquidated entries," the plaintiff-appellants claimed while vying for jurisdiction for their EAPA case under Section 1581(c) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a set of domestic steel companies' bid for a rehearing of the court's denial of its bid to intervene in a series of cases challenging denied exclusion requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs.