Three U.S. steel companies, Cleveland-Cliffs, Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Turkish exporter Habas failed to show that the Commerce Department's finding that Habas' Turkish lira price, and not the U.S. dollar price, controlled the amount owed by the exporter's customers at the time of payment was unsupported. Filing a reply brief on Feb. 26, the steel companies said Habas' arguments, which were "long on verbiage and obfuscation but short on specificity and clarity," only presumed the agency's finding to be wrong and did not actually show that it was (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).

A government claim that an importer failed to exercise “reasonable care” is not enough for an actual charge of negligence under the customs penalty statute, that importer said Feb. 23 before the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Katana Racing d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT # 19-00125).

Solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy responded to the U.S. motion to dismiss their suit challenging the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (see 2401230040) (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

Anti-forced labor nonprofit International Rights Advocates said that it has standing to sue CBP over its inaction in responding to a petition alleging that cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire is made with forced child labor. Responding to the government's motion to dismiss (see 2312180058), International Rights Advocates said it suffered a concrete injury by being forced to divert "substantial resources" to "gather and submit additional and updated evidence of forced labor" following CBP's inaction on the petition (International Trade Advocates v. U.S., CIT # 23-00165).

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 21 that solar companies and industry groups led by the Solar Energy Industries Association failed to show that an en banc rehearing was needed for a decision upholding President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 again remanded the Commerce Department's use of total adverse facts available against exporter Meihua and its affiliate in an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Meihua properly submitted information on the duties it paid, and its submission of its data 56 days before the antidumping review's preliminary results wasn't "untimely."

Exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade to contest a withhold release order on the company and CBP's rejection of the exporter's petition to be removed from the WRO. The company, which goes by Jiaxing Hoshine, said the WRO has done "significant and irreparable damage" to its business and reputation and that CBP has skirted the law by failing to disclose the evidence it used in issuing the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00048).

A World Trade Organization dispute panel on Feb. 20 found a U.S. attempt to revisit part of its countervailing duty laws as they pertain to subsidies on agricultural products violated the nation's WTO commitments. The panel said the U.S. failed to implement the findings of a previous dispute panel ruling, which said these same laws cut against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in relation to a subsidy finding on ripe olives from Spain.

Importer Trijicon's tritium-powered gun sights are "lamps" and not "apparatus," slotting them under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9405, the Court of International Trade ruled on Feb. 16. Judge Mark Barnett said the gun sights do not meet definition of "apparatus" put forward by either Trijicon or the government, who respectively defined the term as a set of materials or equipment and a complex device. The court instead found that the products "are readily classified as lamps," which are defined as "any of various devices for producing light."

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.