The government's claim that a group of Canadian softwood lumber exporters shouldn't be able to intervene in an antidumping duty case is based on "an unreasonably narrow, absurd, and constitutionally problematic reading of" the statute on parties entitled to participate in civil actions, the exporters argued (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied a motion seeking to dissolve an existing injunction against liquidation and another seeking to impose a new one in a case involving the antidumping duty rates for several Indian quartz countertop exporters.

The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on mattresses from a host of countries despite finding that the commission committed various errors in its assessment of whether the market industry is segmented.

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 Commerce Department didn't meaningfully respond to arguments regarding the specificity of the provision of Korean Allowance Units (KAUs) by the South Korean government's cap-and-trade system in a countervailing duty review, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 18.

The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that Commerce could use one antidumping duty review mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to calculate another’s AD when no better information was available. The opinion comes at the end of a long CIT case challenging the Commerce Department’s 2020 administrative review of the AD order on certain oil county tubular goods (OCTG) from Korea, filed by plaintiff Hyundai Steel in May 2022 (see 2205100033).

Turkish duties on a host of U.S. products in retaliation for President Donald Trump's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs violate World Trade Organization commitments, a WTO dispute panel ruled Dec. 19. The panel said the duties violate articles I and II of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and also found that the Section 232 duties are not "safeguards."

A review of the administrative record behind the addition of Ninestar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List shows the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) had no basis for the listing, Ninestar argued in a Dec. 15 brief in support of its bid for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. said in a Dec. 15 motion to dismiss that CBP has discretion in deciding how to pursue investigations on forced labor allegations, including how long those investigations may take, how much information CBP will reveal and whether action will be taken at all (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).

Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."