The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's surrogate value pick for ocean freight charges and its valuation of minor fabricated components in the antidumping duty investigation on mobile access equipment from China. Judge M. Miller Baker upheld the agency's decisions as reasonable after initially remanding both selections.

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. moved to toss a group of importers' counterclaims in a customs penalty case for failure to identify a proper "jurisdictional grant or cause of action," arguing that the companies should have raised their claims before the Commerce Department first (United States v. Lexjet, CIT # 23-00105).

A group of Ukrainian nationals on Dec. 10 accused Intel, Texas Instruments, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Mouser Electronics of not doing enough to ensure the semiconductor parts they make don't end up in Russian or Iranian hands (Shumylo v. Texas Instruments, Tex. # 25-09714).

The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 8 issued its mandate in an appeal concerning the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding that a surge of imports of Vietnamese raw honey from after the date the antidumping duty petition was filed was likely to undermine the remedial purpose of the AD order on the honey. In October, the court said the ITC doesn't have to identify whether a surge of imports subject to AD duties has an adverse impact on the time period after which the final AD order is issued to make a critical circumstances finding (see 2510150032) (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1371, -1370).

Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology filed its opening brief in its appeal of its case contesting its designation as a "Chinese military company," arguing that the Pentagon adopted an "absurdly broad reading of" the law, Section 1260H, and that the lower court "adopted a capacious view of the [Defense] Department's listing authority and a cramped view of Hesai's obvious prejudice" (Hesai Technology v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, D.C. Cir. # 25-5256).

In a motion for judgment filed Dec. 9, ferrosilicon exporter TNC Kazchrome JSC said the Commerce Department had been wrong to apply adverse facts available to it, resulting in a 265.52% countervailing duty rate, for information it provided early in the CVD investigation (TNC Kazchrome JSC v. United States, CIT # 25-00128).

Importer Viecura’s argument that there were facts in its classification case that were in dispute, necessitating a trial, “amount[ed] to vague, unsubstantiated claims,” the U.S. said in a reply brief Dec. 5 (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).

In a Dec. 3 reply supporting its motion for judgment, Nura said that the ITC “did not undertake the analysis that defendants claim is correct” to reach its affirmative critical circumstances finding (Nura USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).