The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 5 sustained the Commerce Department's use of exporter Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for its suppliers' costs of production in the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina.

A Canadian-owned company told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an opening brief March 1 that its "internal inventory transfer" from a Canadian warehouse to New York was not a sale for export, and its goods shouldn’t have been liquidated using transaction value with a 75.75% “uplift” (Midwest-CBK, LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1142).

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 29 reply brief that exporter Guizhou Tyre offered a "confused rendition of" the Commerce Department's separate rate analysis, equating the presumption of foreign state control with the lower standard from the agency's "substantial evidence requirement." The government said that, contrary to Guizhou Tyre's claims, it's not Commerce's duty to affirmatively show an absence of Chinese state control (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2165).

The Court of International Trade on March 1 rejected importer Diamond Tools Technology's request for attorney fees in its suit challenging CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. Judge Timothy Reif said that since the case presented two issues of "first impression," the government's position was "substantially justified."

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Feb. 29 rejected Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against its designation on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the government.

The Solar Energy Industries Association argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used the "right tools" of statutory construction to answer the "wrong question" of agency deference in sustaining President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. Filing a response on Feb. 28 to the government's opposition to SEIA's rehearing en banc motion, the industry group said that the U.S. didn't dispute, and "thus concedes," that the Maple Leaf deferential standard is "deeply out of step" with the law set by the Supreme Court, CAFC and other circuit courts (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

Various solar cell exporters and importers defended their right to intervene in a Court of International Trade lawsuit on the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian nations found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China. Filing a pair of reply briefs, the exporters and importers said they have the right to intervene since they have an "interest in the property or transaction at issue" (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision that Indonesian data is not economically comparable to Vietnam as part of its surrogate country selection process, along with the agency's consideration of evidence pertaining to exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company's production information.

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 Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 issued an amended decision in a customs case on the tariff classification of five categories of chrome-plated plastic automobile parts after initially deciding the case Dec. 18. The new decision adds a discussion of axle covers, the fifth category of goods, finding them to fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8708 pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 1.