The Commerce Department stuck by its decision to apply to countervailing duty respondent The Ancientree Cabinet Co. adverse facts available related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. In Dec. 6 remand results to the Court of International Trade, Commerce said it tried to verify Ancientree's submissions regarding its customers' non-use of the EBCP but was unable to verify key information regarding non-use, leading to the continued AFA rate for the exporter (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00110).

The Commerce Department reverted to a previously used land benchmark calculation for its 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. The court previously had sent back the land benchmark formula for violating the scope of an earlier remand order, telling Commerce to use the calculation from its first remand, in which the agency used a 2010 Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis (CBRE) land report to set the benchmark (see 2311170034) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03912).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during Dec. 7 oral arguments sharply questioned importer Rimco's arguments that it didn't need to raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to its adverse facts available rate administratively at the Commerce Department before challenging it in court (Rimco v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2079).

The Court of International Trade doesn't have jurisdiction to hear importer Southern Cross Seafoods' challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service's rejection of its application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass, the court ruled Dec. 7. Judge Timothy Reif said that the agency's decision, issued under the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984 (AMLRCA), doesn't constitute an "embargo or other quantitative restriction," barring jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction.

Textile gloves with a plastic coating on the palm and fingers are classifiable in the tariff schedule as gloves, not as articles of plastics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a Dec. 6 opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit conducted oral argument Dec. 6 on an appeal of a tariff classification case that ruled the wrapping, called “net wrap,” that certain farming machines use to package bales of hay were not considered agricultural equipment but rather textiles, carrying a higher duty (RKW Klerks v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).

Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. moved at the Court of International Trade to unseal and unredact the administrative record in its case against the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF) decision to add the company to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Ninestar said that while the trade court's recent order mandating disclosure to Ninestar's counsel of the government's evidentiary record marked some progress, the company's counsel said they remain "hobbled" since they can't share these materials with their client (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham questioned both the position of the government and affected domestic producers in a Dec. 5 oral argument on whether CBP properly denied payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, on antidumping and countervailing duties under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Adee Honey Farms v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2105) (Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2106).

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 ruled Dec. 4 that a medical food company's imports would be classified as food, not as pharmaceutical products.