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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Jan. 7 clarified the standard Commerce must follow when determining how high it can set a review respondent’s antidumping duty rate based on adverse inferences. Rejecting a "single sentence" justification for an adverse facts available rate Commerce offered in the final results of a review, it held the department may not drastically depart from accuracy without establishing a "particularly strong need to deter noncompliance" based on record evidence showing unreasonable negligence or intentional misconduct.

3D importer Quantified Operations on Jan. 5 asked the Court of International Trade to compel discovery in its classification case. The importer said the government was trying to hide behind the deliberative process privilege without meeting the procedural requirements for it (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00178).

The International Trade Commission erred when it found that aluminum extrusion exports from 14 nations didn't injure the U.S. industry, AD/CVD petitioners the U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition and the United Steelworkers argued in a Jan. 3 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The seven-count complaint challenged, among other things, the commission's conclusions that the extrusions didn't undersell the domestic like product nor have "significant adverse price effects" (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00001)

Antidumping petitioner Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment took to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 3 to challenge the Commerce Department's surrogate value picks in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on mobile access equipment from China. The petitioner filed a 12-count complaint to contest 12 different surrogate data picks (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT # 24-00219).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2024. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.

Exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month to hear its antidumping duty scope case. The petition cast the lower court's decision sustaining the inclusion of its production in the scope of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand as a failure to apply the high court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the principle of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. Wheatland Tube Co., Sup. Ct. 24-696).

The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's determination in a covered merchandise referral to exclude certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings made from Chinese fittings that underwent production in Vietnam from the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves remanded Commerce's consideration of various (k)(1) sources, including a circumvention finding that took a contrary position.

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.

Foreign-trade zone goods become "importations" for duty drawback purposes when they are entered for consumption into the U.S. and not when they are admitted into an FTZ, importer King Maker Marketing told the Court of International Trade. Responding to the government's motion to dismiss the company's suit challenging the rejection of its duty drawback claims, King Maker said goods in an FTZ are considered to be outside the customs territory of the U.S., making the "date of importation" the date the goods were withdrawn from the FTZ (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).