The Commerce Department's use of thresholds proposed by Dr. Jacob Cohen -- the creator of the Cohen's d test -- for evaluating the d statistic in the agency's analysis to detect "masked" dumping isn't line with "normal statistical practice," exporter SeAH Steel Corp. argued in a Jan. 8 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

The "low standard of proof" that the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force used in adding exporter Ninestar Corp. to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List violates the requirements of UFLPA as written in the statute, Ninestar argued in a Jan. 10 supplemental brief at the Court of International Trade (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit questioned the claim that the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement bars a class-action lawsuit against U.S. companies and their officials. The suit, brought by Peruvian citizens, alleges that a mineral smelting and refining complex in Peru caused environmental damage, harming the individuals (Sr. Kate Reid v. The Doe Run Resources Corp., 8th Cir. # 23-1625).

On Jan. 8, the U.S. moved to dismiss an importer’s claim contesting CBP's decision to liquidate nine of its picture frame moulding entries, saying the Court of International Trade lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because the liquidations were related to the importer's prior disclosure (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).

The U.S. defended its right not to turn over parts of the administrative record in a case on the decision to add exporter Ninestar Corp. to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, saying that the record is protected by the "informer's privilege" or is "law-enforcement sensitive" (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).

A Chinese aluminum foil exporter filed a complaint Jan. 8 at the Court of International Trade challenging the results of a 2021-2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering their products (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).

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 Jan. 8 opinion rejected a U.S. request to redact information in the court's recent opinion sustaining an International Trade Commission affirmative injury finding in antidumping and countervailing duty cases on mattresses.

The U.S. Supreme Court again turned down the chance to review President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties beyond procedural time limits, denying a petition for writ of certiorari by steel nail maker Oman Fasteners (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Sup. Ct. # 23-432).

The Commerce Department on remand altered its analysis on whether an additional allotment of traceable carbon emissions credits in South Korea constituted a financial contribution. Submitting remand results to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 5, Commerce said that the South Korean government's decision to distribute additional free allowances of carbon emissions credits constitutes a "direct transfer of funds," rather than revenue forgone by the foreign government (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00170).