The Commerce Department illegally rejected importer LE Commodities' requests for exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on its imports of stainless steel round bar, the importer argued in an Oct. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade. LE Commodities argued that looking at the record, the "only reasonable conclusion" was that the company cannot obtain these goods in the U.S. market in a "sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 23-00220).

Imported electronic bicycles were improperly classified by CBP and would have been excluded from Section 301 duties, Washington-based e-bike importer Arba International (doing business as Ariel Rider E-Bikes) said in its Oct. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Arba International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00215).

The Commerce Department properly dropped its subsidy finding in a countervailing duty investigation for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals concerning a 30-year land lease to one of its affiliates, Inox Wind Limited, by India's State Industrial Development Corp., the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 13 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu defended his prior remand order in the case, which said that based on Commerce's interpretation of its regulation, the subsidy finding couldn't be legal.

The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

CBP's decision to assess antidumping and countervailing duties on its 2019 imports of solar modules from Vietnam could only be challenged under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because no other jurisdictions were available to provide relief of the "unprecedented" imposition of AD and CVD on merchandise not subject to an AD or CVD order, Greentech Energy Solutions said in its Oct. 12 response to DOJ's earlier motion to dismiss a case regarding imports of solar modules from Vietnam (Greentech Energy Solutions v. U.S., CIT # 23-00118).

The Commerce Department continued on remand to use antidumping duty respondent Nexco's acquisition costs as a proxy for the cost of production of beekeeper-suppliers as part of the antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Argentina. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Oct. 13, Commerce also stuck by its decision to compare Nexco's U.S. sale prices with normal values based on Nexco's third-country sale prices to Germany on a monthly basis instead of a quarterly basis (Nexco v. U.S., CIT # 22-00203).

The Commerce Department isn't allowed to rely on its past practice if it's contrary to a statute, though it "has sought to do just that in" the antidumping duty investigation on wind towers from Spain, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 12 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu said Commerce can't assign an individual company's adverse facts available rate to an entire collapsed entity in the present circumstances. The judge sent back the investigation for a second time, taking Commerce to task for ignoring the court's prior orders.

The Commerce Department made no changes to subsidy rates calculated for the countervailing duty investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia, according to remand results it submitted to the Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT # 21-00117).

The Supreme Court should take up a case on whether President Donald Trump lawfully expanded Section 232 steel and aluminum duties to cover "derivative" products to decide how separation-of-powers principles apply to statutory interpretations delegating vast legislative power to the executive, petitioner PrimeSource Building Products argued. Filing a brief in response to the government's defense, PrimeSource claimed that its case gives the court a chance to "do something about" the government's position that the executive can exercise both Congress' legislative powers and the judiciary's "interpretive responsibilities" (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Sup. Ct. # 23-69).

The Commerce Department didn't properly support its de jure specificity finding regarding a Chinese tax program that makes a resident enterprise's income derived from investment gains in another resident enterprise tax-exempt, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 11 opinion. Judge Jane Restani said the program, established under Article 26(2) of China's Enterprise Income Tax Law, is not tied to a specific enterprise or industry and thus fails the specificity analysis.