The Court of International Trade upheld Dec. 17 the Commerce Department’s decision to swap back to the model match methodology it had used earlier in a review of antidumping duty orders on superabsorbent polymers from South Korea. The change meant administrative review mandatory respondent LG Chem’s AD rate jumped back up, from 17.64% to 26.05%.

The Court of International Trade rejected U.S. Steel Corp.'s bid to redact portions of the court's recent decision remanding 31 Section 232 exclusion requests. Judge M. Miller Baker said a showing of good cause alone isn't enough to shield discovery materials after they have been introduced at trial or submitted "in connection with dispositive motions," noting the need for transparency in the judicial system and presumption of public access to court proceedings.

The Commerce Department failed to consider whether U.S. Steel Corp. had the capacity to fill the aggregate of importer California Steel Industries' Section 232 steel tariff exclusion requests as opposed to just assessing whether U.S. Steel could fill all of them individually, the Court of International Trade held on Nov. 13. Judge M. Miller Baker added that Commerce didn't address its concession that it couldn't timely supply more slab than contracted for with California Steel.

Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann again remanded parts of the Commerce Department remand results on the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China. He also granted in part a U.S. motion to dismiss in his Dec. 16 decision.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told the Court of International Trade that it has now twice wrongly told an importer that its first-sale price method to determine the duty level of its cookware was prohibited.

In light of speculation about whether President-elect Donald Trump will use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada, observers are revisiting the lone decision in the history of U.S. case law reviewing emergency trade action: U.S. v. Yoshida International.

The Commerce Department has the inherent authority to set procedural requirements in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty proceedings, making its revocation of certain AD orders lawful given that no interested domestic party filed a notice of intent to participate in sunset reviews on the orders, the agency said. Filing its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 11, Commerce said the Court of International Trade's rejection of its action usurped the department's clear authority to fix its own procedures (Archroma U.S. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2159).

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. 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.