Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology filed an amended complaint in its suit against its designation as a Chinese military company after the Pentagon relisted the company (see 2410230018), arguing that the decision is "just as unsubstantiated and weak as the original one that they recently refused to defend" (Hesai Technology Co. v. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-01381).

In support of the results after remand of an antidumping duty review on welded carbon-quality steel from the United Arab Emirates (see 2409240022), defendant-intervenors said the Commerce Department’s use of inter-quarter comparisons in a differential pricing analysis but same-quarter comparisons in a margin calculation was reasonable because the contexts are different (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).

The U.S. argued Nov. 15 that an importer of Chinese-origin countertops had waived its challenge to CBP’s practice of initiating Enforce and Protect Act inquiries based on the agency’s “date of receipt” of a petition (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted exporter CVB's bid to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of an injury finding on mattresses from various Asian countries. Since the U.S. is continuing its cross-appeal in the matter, the appellate court renamed the case in a Nov. 18 order. Judge Jimmie Reyna renamed the case to In Re United States (Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).

The U.S. and an importer reached a settlement in a 2021 classification dispute regarding Chinese-origin light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. Under the deal, the importer’s lights won't be subject to Section 232 tariffs, with a 25% additional duty, but will be subject to Section 301 tariffs (Super Bright LEDs v. U.S., CIT # 21-00099).

Importer MTD Products dropped its case at the Court of International Trade seeking exclusions from Section 301 China tariffs on its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines. The company filed a complaint in June, claiming that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative established exclusions for engines of its type classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8407.90.1020 and 8407.90.1010 (see 2406060034). Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (MTD Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00174).

The U.S. ignored the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in defending its circumvention finding on exporter Canadian Solar, the solar panel exporter said in a Nov. 15 reply brief. Canadian Solar said the Commerce Department should not be shown "tremendous" deference, as claimed by the U.S., since the agency doesn't have "unbridled authority to make an affirmative finding of circumvention" (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00222).

The U.S. will reliquidate 352 steel entries from importer Valbruna Slater Stainless without Section 232 duties, though the company will drop its challenge seeking refunds of Section 232 duties on 90 additional entries. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 15, the government and Valbruna reached the settlement regarding the company's entries following court-led mediation (see 2411120056). Under the judgment's terms, CBP will "promptly reliquidate," without Section 232 duties, 352 entries of steel articles from Italy laid out in an attachment to the stipulation (Valbruna Slater Stainless v. United States, CIT # 21-00027).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 14 dismissed petitioner Aloha Pencil Co.'s case challenging the Commerce Department's recission of the review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, covering entries in 2022-23. The court noted that Aloha Pencil failed to timely file a complaint. Counsel for the company didn't respond to request for comment (Aloha Pencil Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00192).

In short remand results released Nov. 14, the Commerce Department said it was removing the 5.46% Export Buyers' Credit Program rate from a solar cell exporter’s countervailing duty (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).