The U.S. said Jan. 24 at the Court of International Trade that it was seeking more than $193 million in unpaid antidumping duties from German company Koehler Oberkirch, formerly known as Papierfabrik August Koehler (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

CBP, on remand at the Court of International Trade, reversed its finding that importers Norca Industries Co. and International Piping & Procurment Group's imported carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings evaded the antidumping duty order on the pipe fittings from China (Norca Industrial v. United States, CIT # 21-00192).

Logistics provider Your Special Delivery Services Specialty Logistics (YSDS) doesn't meet the criteria to act as the importer of record on a shipment, CBP said in a recent ruling. While the company would have a lien on shipments that it could exercise in the event of nonpayment, that doesn't qualify as enough of a financial interest in the shipment to give it the right to make entry, the agency said.

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 sustained the Commerce Department's finding that oil piping from Brunei and the Philippines circumvented the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on oil country tubular goods from China.

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 U.S. moved to dismiss a complaint from solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy at the Court of International Trade 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 (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 23 denied a U.S. request for a voluntary remand to reconsider due process issues in an Enforce and Protect Act case involving cast iron soil pipe imports by Phoenix Metal, in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S.

The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit has consistently permitted the Commerce Department's use of its non-market economy policy in antidumping cases, the U.S. told the appellate court in a Jan. 18 opening brief. Appealing a Court of International Trade decision calling into question the NME policy, the government argued that "Congress has afforded Commerce wide latitude in how it enforces and implements" the AD statute and "this Court has consistently sustained Commerce's exercise of this discretion, in the absence of unambiguous statutory direction" (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 19 sustained the Commerce Department's use of exporter PhosAgro's profit before tax number instead of its gross profit mark when calculating the company's phosphate mining rights benefit.

Target Corp. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the U.S. failed to distinguish the court's opinion in Cemex v. U.S. from Target's case, in which the retail giant is contesting a court-ordered reliquidation of its entries that erroneously received a favorable antidumping duty rate. Target said that no "amount of legal legerdemain and reference to" distinguishable case law can "mask the vacuity of" the "attempted distinctions" (Target Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2274).