Exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret and petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition each contested an element of the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on Turkish rebar. In comments to the Court of International Trade laying out their disagreements, Kaptan challenged Commerce's use of a report from Colliers International as a benchmark in assessing the benefit Kaptan derived from the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration, while the coalition challenged the agency's finding that exemptions from Turkey's Banking Insurance and Transaction Tax were neither de jure nor de facto specific (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 23-00131).

Antidumping petitioner Nucor Corp. argued last week that the Commerce Department failed to support its "reliance on quarterly costs" in calculating the cost of production for respondent Officine Tecnosider in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Italy. Nucor said Commerce failed to address concerns raised by the Court of International Trade on the use of the quarterly costs methodology (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).

Importer Northern Tool & Equipment voluntarily dismissed its customs case on the classification of its agricultural sprayers at the Court of International Trade. The importer brought the suit in 2022 to claim that its sprayers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8424.49.0000, dutiable at 2.4%, and 8424.41.1000, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.03, which carries a 25% Section 301 duty, should be classified under the duty-free subheading 9817.00.5000. Northern Tool dismissed a similar case last month (see 2501240017). Counsel for the company didn't respond to a request for comment (Northern Tool & Equipment v. United States, CIT # 22-00329).

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).