German paper exporter Koehler further defended its bid for an interlocutory appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision allowing the government to effect service on the company through its U.S. counsel (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

The U.S. asked for a voluntary remand at the Court of International Trade in a suit on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy to reconsider the "single-entity treatment" of exporters Dalmine and Silcotub (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00039).

The U.S. and importer Cozy Comfort traded briefs at the Court of International Trade seeking to discredit the other side's evidence ahead of a bench trial on the classification of the importer's wearable blanket, called The Comfy (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

Responding to exporters and importers of Thai solar panels, the U.S. argued Sept. 25 that it hadn’t unlawfully elevated one relevant factor, research and development, in a circumvention inquiry over the other four. It agreed the Commerce Department had prioritized R&D -- but that was reasonable in context and allowable by statute, it said (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).

The Commerce Department on Sept. 23 said that it can permissibly use "inter-quarter comparisons" in the Cohen's d test while detecting "masked" dumping while using "same-quarter comparisons" in its margin calculations. The agency said that "fluctuating production costs," which call for same-quarter comparisons in calculating antidumping duty margins, "do not introduce distortions into the comparison of U.S. prices with other U.S. prices in the Cohen's d test" (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00113).

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 U.S. on Sept. 23 told the Court of International Trade an exporter "confuses statutory schemes" when it claims that past negative antidumping and countervailing duty determinations shield against anti-circumvention findings on the same goods from the same countries. Defending the Commerce Department's circumvention findings of the AD/CVD orders on circular welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes from China, India and South Korea, the government said exporter SeAH Steel Vina Corp. conflated the criteria for AD/CVD investigations with those for circumvention inquiries (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol # 23-00256).

The Court of International Trade held oral argument Sept. 19 in a case alleging that CBP wrongly detained an entry of weight loss dietary supplements for almost a year (Unichem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

Importer Nutricia North America told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 that the government's claims in a customs suit on the company's medical foods present "several fundamental flaws." Nutricia argued that, despite the government's claim that the products are barred from Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3004 due to Note 1(a) to chapter 30, the medical foods "easily fall within the terms of heading 3004 as 'medicaments ... for therapeutic uses'" (Nutricia North America v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).

An importer of weekly/monthly planners told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 that it and the government were in agreement that the Court of International Trade had committed a reversible error by classifying its planners as diaries (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).