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 ruled Nov. 26 that it has jurisdiction over all denied protests of CBP detention decisions -- even if the government claimed that the Drug Enforcement Administration, not CBP, chose to make the seizure. CBP has the final authority over all detentions, making all detentions protestable under U.S. law, CIT Judge Timothy Reif held in his opinion.
Against opposition from exporters (see 2411190063), the U.S. supported Nov. 21 the Commerce Department’s continued decision on remand to use an inter-quarter comparison for an aspect of an administrative review and same-quarter comparisons for another (see 2409240022) (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
A Turkish rebar exporter Nov. 17 sought judgment in two old and two new challenges against the Commerce Department in the Court of International Trade (see 2407010038) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #24-00096).
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) filed a trio of opening briefs in its three concurrent appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, all of which are seeking to account for the exclusion of exporter Colakoglu from the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Turkey in the International Trade Commission's five-year sunset review of the order.
A plaintiff and defendant-intervenor provided lukewarm responses to the Commerce Department’s new results on remand for its antidumping duty review on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India (see 2407120016), each supporting it in part (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).
Responding to tapered roller bearing exporters’ August motion for judgment that cited Loper Bright to challenge the Commerce Department’s use of Cohen’s d test in administrative reviews, the U.S. said Nov. 14 that the department still exercises significant discretion in antidumping and countervailing duty matters (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).
The Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS) was updated between Nov. 6 and Nov. 18 with the following headquarters ruling (ruling revocations and modifications will be detailed elsewhere in a separate article as they are announced in the Customs Bulletin):
In support of the results after remand of an antidumping duty review on welded carbon-quality steel from the United Arab Emirates (see 2409240022), defendant-intervenors said the Commerce Department’s use of inter-quarter comparisons in a differential pricing analysis but same-quarter comparisons in a margin calculation was reasonable because the contexts are different (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
Raising many of the same arguments seen in similar cases (see 2407010059 and 2407030064), a Thai solar panel exporter said Nov. 15 that the U.S. was “misstating” findings and contradicting itself in its own analysis when it found that solar panel importers were circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on solar panels from China based on only one factor in the usual country-of-origin analysis (Trina Solar Science & Technology v. U.S., CIT # 23-00227).