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 allowed tomato exporters NS Brands and Naturesweet Invernaderos to intervene in a case challenging the 1996 antidumping duty investigation on Mexican tomatoes, despite the request for intervention coming five years too late. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves held that the exporters, collectively referred to as NatureSweet, showed good cause for intervention, due to the unorthodox nature of the appeal, and properly articulated the basis for its intervention.

The Court of International Trade ruled Nov. 26 that it has jurisdiction over all denied protests of CBP detention decisions -- even if the government claimed that the Drug Enforcement Administration, not CBP, chose to make the seizure. CBP has the final authority over all detentions, making all detentions protestable under U.S. law, CIT Judge Timothy Reif held in his opinion.

President-elect Donald Trump will most likely either turn to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose his recently announced tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, said trade lawyers interviewed by Trade Law Daily. Though much remains unknown about how Trump will impose these tariffs, the president-elect may turn to the two broad statutes to impose the tariffs to accomplish his stated goals of curbing the flow of migrants and fentanyl into the U.S.

The Commerce Department properly decided not to reopen the record to inflate Mexican surrogate wage data and ultimately choose Brazilian wage data in the antidumping duty investigation on beer kegs from China, the Court of International Trade said. Sustaining Commerce's third remand results in the case, Judge M. Miller Baker said the agency reasonably said it was "unnecessary to reopen the record to inflate the Mexican wage figures" when the Brazilian data "suited the agency's purposes."

CBP failed to consider material evidence when it found that importer Scioto Valley Woodworking didn't evade the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, the Court of International Trade said in a decision made public last week. Judge Lisa Wang said CBP didn't sufficiently consider evidence of the Haiyan Group's ownership of Scioto and its affiliated supplier, Alno, and it didn't adequately discuss the contents of an additional warehouse disclosed by Alno.

A New York resident brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade Nov. 21 saying that several questions on CBP’s customs broker exam were unfairly ambiguous, conflicting or lacking essential information, resulting in his failure to pass it (Shuangyang Li v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CIT # 24-00205).

Congressional intent is not "frustrated" when duty drawback claims on entries that aren't liquidated "and become final" within one year of the drawback claim being made aren't deemed liquidated, the U.S. said in a Nov. 22 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).

Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed a trio of opening briefs in its three concurrent appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are seeking to account for the exclusion of exporter Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the order.

The Commerce Department calculated a zero percent dumping margin for exporter Grupo Simec on remand at the Court of International Trade, dropping the 66.7% adverse facts available rate for the company in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Mexico. Commerce accepted submissions from the exporter on remand after the trade court said the agency unreasonably declined an extension request from the company (Grupo Acecero v. United States, CIT # 22-00202).