It's unclear if the Court of International Trade has the authority to order reliquidation on imports to "increase duties to the detriment of importers," the Solar Energy Industries Association argued in a post-argument brief at the Court of International Trade. SEIA said the trade court should look "skeptically" on the government's request seeking such liquidation, and "require a compelling case based on the equities for granting such relief" (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT # 20-03941).

Three importers found to have evaded antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese glycine told the Court of International Trade that CBP has failed to offer any evidence of direct evasion of the orders. The importers, Newtrend USA, Starille and Nutrawave Co., said in a brief last week that all three categories of evidence relied on by CBP amount to "nothing more than speculation" (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).

Three parties in a sprawling dispute over Canadian lumber each replied Feb. 21 to the U.S. argument that Loper Bright doesn't apply to judicial review of the Commerce Department’s administrative review of Canadian softwood lumber (see 2502140050) (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT # 23-00187).

The International Trade Commission improperly found that the U.S. industry was injured by shrimp imports and not by "conditions of competition unrelated to imports," a trade group for Indian shrimp exporters told the Court of International Trade in a Feb. 24 complaint. The trade group, the Seafood Exporters Association of India, also alleged that cooked frozen shrimp products "must be considered a separate like product distinct from uncooked frozen shrimp products" (Seafood Exporters Association of India v. United States, CIT # 25-00031).

Importer Outokumpu Stainless Steel brought a Feb. 20 complaint to the Court of International Trade alleging CBP had wrongly failed to correct the country of origin designated on 173 of its entries, resulting in the importer being assessed Section 232 tariffs (Outokumpu Stainless USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00047).

Eteros has not shown good cause for an expedited scheduling order in its case alleging that CBP retaliated against the company's executives after the company received a favorable ruling at the Court of International Trade in a case on imports of marijuana paraphernalia, the U.S. told the trade court on Feb. 24. The government also said it's likely that CIT doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the matter, indicating that it soon will file a motion to dismiss the case (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00036).

Responding to a petitioner (see 2412300009), the U.S. said Feb. 21 that two mandatory respondents in a countervailing duty review of chlorinated isoscyanurates from China hadn’t earned an adverse inference for failing to provide the Commerce Department land-use contracts that would show they hadn’t been granted land for less-than-adequate remuneration (Bio-Lab v. U.S., CIT # 24-00118).

U.S. activated carbon producers Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit Americas brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 21 claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly accepted an antidumping duty order administrative review mandatory respondent’s allegation of a ministerial error. The allegation actually concerned “a methodological issue, not a ministerial issue,” they said (Calgon Carbon Corporation v. United States, CIT # 25-00028).

The Commerce Department failed to use adverse facts available against antidumping duty review respondent PT Bahari Makmur Sejati in the AD investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Indonesia, petitioner American Shrimp Processors Association argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner also challenged the agency's surrogate company pick for valuing home market profit and expense ratios and "allocation of the entire sales price for shrimp sold with sauce to the shrimp alone" (American Shrimp Processors Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00027).

Earlier this month, Wisconsin man Gary Barnes filed a lawsuit challenging the chief executive's right to impose tariffs as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (see 2502060026). In an email to Trade Law Daily, Barnes said he's targeting tariffs, since they "force retirees, low-income citizens and those on some kind of living assistance to help subsidize tax breaks for others" and also victimize the "less fortunate in our society" (Gary L Barnes v. United States President Donald Trump, CIT # 25-00043).