Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top 20 stories published in 2025. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference numbers.

Exporter Sonha SSP Vietnam Sole Member Company partially joined exporter Vinlong Stainless Steel (Vietnam) Company's motion for judgment in a case on the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded stainless steel pressure pipe from Vietnam. Sonha said the "unfair 114.59% margin" the Commerce Department calculated for the company "is the direct result of Commerce's erroneous decision to use Morocco instead of Indonesia as the primary surrogate country" (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00132).

The Commerce Department properly used the financial statements of manufacturer PT Suparma to calculate respondent Go-Pak Vietnam's surrogate values and used a simple average of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4810.32.90 and 4810.92.90, the US argued in a reply to Go-Pak's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam v. United States, CIT # 25-00070).

The Commerce Department erred by including manufacturer Tecnicas de Fluidos' products within the scope of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe from Mexico and by collapsing respondent Maquilacero and Tecnicas, its affiliate, in the 2022-23 administrative review of the order, Maquilacero and Tecnicas argued in a motion for judgment (Maquilacero v. United States, CIT # 25-00176).

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 last week denied several wildlife advocacy groups' request to expedite consideration of the groups' motion to enforce their settlement agreement with the Commerce Department regarding the importation of fish from all countries that don't have fishery regulations comparable to the United States' (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Howard Lutnick, CIT # 24-00148).

A group of importers opposed the government's motion to dismiss the companies' counterclaims in a customs penalty case for lack of jurisdiction or cause of action, arguing that their claims are properly being raised as counterclaims and don't need to independently qualify for the trade court's other jurisdictional grants (United States v. Lexjet, CIT # 23-00105).

The U.S. defended its decision made on remand to include exporter Cheng Shin's temporary-use (T-type) tires within the scope of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. Responding to comments from Cheng Shin on Dec. 22 at the Court of International Trade, the government said Commerce reasonably found that Cheng Shin's tires "are of a size that fits passenger cars and, therefore, are in-scope merchandise," and additionally don't qualify for the exclusion for temporary tires (United Steel Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, v. United States, CIT # 24-00165).

The Commerce Department erred in assigning total adverse facts available to respondent Vinlong Stainless Steel (Vietnam) in the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded stainless steel pressure pipe from Vietnam, Vinlong and importer Norca Industrial argued in a Dec. 23 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Norca Industrial Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00132).

The International Trade Commission can't rely on the Commerce Department's findings regarding the post-petition increase in subject imports for the purpose of making a critical circumstances determination, importer Nura USA argued in a Dec. 23 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Nura USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).