The U.S. defended its motion to dismiss importer Retractable Technologies' suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 duty hike on needles and syringes, claiming that the Court of International Trade either doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Retractable's claims or that the company failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

The Commerce Department adequately explained its finding that it had sufficient industry support to launch the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 10. After previously remanding the issue, Judge Claire Kelly held that the agency sufficiently addressed evidence contrary to its conclusion.

The government's cause of action against a surety runs from the date the surety breached the demand for payment on a customs bond and not from the date of liquidation, or deemed liquidation, of the underlying entries covered by the bond, the U.S. argued. Filing a cross-motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 9, the U.S. said it timely filed its case because the suit was brought within six years from the date surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. was delinquent on an over $100,000 bill for unpaid duties (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

The Commerce Department issued a final rule making various changes to its antidumping and countervailing duty procedures, notably altering its nonmarket economy policy in AD cases by allowing entities in third countries "owned or controlled" by nonmarket economies to be subject to the country-wide AD rate for that nation.

The Commerce Department didn't properly explain its approach to its surrogate financial ratio calculation in the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Dec. 9. Judges Timothy Dyk and Kara Stoll said Commerce failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio.

Court-ordered reliquidations aren't actions taken by CBP and can't be protested, the government said in oral arguments held Dec. 6 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a result, the Federal Circuit doesn't have jurisdiction to hear Target's appeal of a liquidation ordered by CIT, the U.S. said (Target v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).

New Zealand conservation non-profit Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2024 comparability findings on New Zealand's West Coast North Island set-net and trawl fisheries, alleging a host of analytical and legal violations committed by the agency. The group said the comparability findings fail to enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act, further endangering the Maui dolphin -- an endangered species of which only an estimated 43 remain (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).

A 2012 analysis memorandum from a prior antidumping duty determination should be put on the record of a suit on an anti-circumvention proceeding, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 5. Granting the government's motion to complete the administrative record, Judge Stephen Vaden dubbed the spat "pedantic" and said the record "should be supplemented."

The Commerce Department’s self-developed “levels of trade” test doesn’t comport with U.S. law, especially since the Supreme Court's holding in Loper Bright, Spanish aluminum exporter Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux argued Nov. 27 in support of its June motion for judgment (see 2406130052) (Compania Valenciana de Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. United States, CIT # 23-00259).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 4 questioned importer Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) and the government regarding the tariff classification of frozen fruit mixtures. Judge Todd Hughes led the bulk of the questioning, pushing Nature's Touch on how to classify the goods if the court finds that the mixtures aren't food preparations, as claimed by the company, and how they should be classified instead under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 0811, which covers certain frozen fruit (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2093).