The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Jan. 17 in a pair of cases contesting the Chevron doctrine, under which deference is afforded to executive agencies in interpreting federal laws where there is ambiguity. Many of the justices appeared primed to strike down the doctrine, including Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, who either criticized its use or questioned its current relevancy and impact (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Sup. Ct. # 22-451) (Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce, Sup. Ct. # 22-1219).

NEW YORK -- The Court of International Trade held oral argument on Jan. 18 in Chinese exporter Ninestar's case challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, addressing the company's motion for a preliminary injunction against its listing and its bid to unseal and unredact the record in the case (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).

Pistol maker Glock sued the U.S. at the Court of International Trade Jan. 16, saying CBP, upon liquidation of Glock’s imports, erroneously failed to deduct Glock’s royalty payments from the imports’ value calculation (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 sent back CBP's finding that importer Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said CBP, in both the final evasion decision and an administrative review of the decision, committed "multiple errors, both of fact and of law." The judge said CBP didn't have evidence on its side in making the evasion finding, nor did it properly initiate the investigation.

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 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to accept antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners' supplemental questionnaire response after initially rejecting it for being submitted 16 minutes late. Judge M. Miller Baker, in a Jan. 5 opinion made public Jan. 16, nodded to his prior opinion in the case, in which he held that the rejection of the submission was "the very definition of abuse of discretion" (see 2307170036). The result was a zero percent dumping margin for the exporter.

The government hasn't given a "compelling justification" for why it used "secret evidence" to add Ninestar Corp. to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, Ninestar argued Jan. 15 (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Commerce Department swapped its use of partial adverse facts available for partial neutral facts available for antidumping duty respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. after admitting that it isn't able to determine whether Tainai has "sufficient control over its suppliers to induce their cooperation" (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00038).

Solar panel exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to rehear their case on President Donald Trump's decision to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

An Italian tire company had not adequately proven it wasn't controlled by the Chinese government, especially as substantial evidence existed to the contrary, the U.S. said Jan. 5 in response to the exporter’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Pirelli Tyre v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).