The U.S. told the Court of International Trade on July 15 that importer CVB cannot meet constitutional or statutory standing to challenge the Commerce Department's scope decision finding that seven models of wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (CVB v. United States, CIT # 24-00036).

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.

Citing the recent overturning of Chevron, a Belgium citrate exporter on July 12 attacked the Commerce Department’s method of determining whether an administrative review respondent has faced “significant” cost fluctuations during their period of review (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said July 15. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the statute only provides for interest that's "earned on" antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order.

Countervailing duty respondent Riverside Plywood and its cross-owned affiliate Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. said the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available to find that all of its input suppliers were government authorities (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00106).

The Commerce Department in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on July 12 nudged exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals' antidumping duty rate from 10.01% to 10.36% after reversing its decision to grant the company a constructed export price offset (Daikin America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00122).

The Commerce Department reversed its use of adverse facts available against an Indian exporter of welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes but said it was “concerned” that use of unaffiliated, noncooperative suppliers could provide otherwise-cooperative review respondents a “cloak of invisibility” (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during a July 11 oral argument probed the government and parties to an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case on its standard of review in the scope case. Judge Sharon Prost said at the outset that the court is "being very careful" in terms of what it says on standard of review issues in "light of all of the recent opinions and litigation concerning standard of review" in administrative law issues (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532).

The Court of International Trade on July 10 kept the vast majority of the confidential record shielded from the public in Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann only ordered an eight-page stretch of the confidential record unsealed, given that it detailed the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's "standard operating procedures."

The Court of International Trade on June 17 (see 2406170037) -- in an opinion released publicly July 10 -- upheld a CBP finding that six companies didn’t evade antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China by transshipping them through the Dominican Republic. Judge Richard Eaton explained that CBP had reasonably reinterpreted record evidence within the context of other information it had failed to consider previously.