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. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the principle of stare decisis requires the appellate court to sustain the legality of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

German paper exporters Koehler Oberkirch and Koehler Paper on May 13 opposed the government's bid to serve the companies' U.S.-based counsel in a separate case, claiming that the rules don't "permit such service." The exporters said service instead should be effectuated through diplomatic channels, as contemplated by the rules, as this would "respect international comity and due process principles" (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

The U.S. on May 10 told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Court of International Trade "improperly relied on extra-record information" in rejecting the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on hardwood plywood from China (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).

The Court of International Trade on May 9 allowed a case to proceed against the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on Southeast Asian solar panels, rejecting motions to dismiss from the government and nine solar cell importers and exporters.

An importer challenging the detention of its shipment of dietary supplements failed to make any legal arguments and instead questioned “the veracity of the Government’s statements regarding [the Drug Enforcement Administration's] role with respect to the merchandise at issue,” DOJ said May 9 in reply to an importer’s opposition to its motion to dismiss the case (see 2404090029) (UniChem Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00033).

The Court of International Trade ruled May 9 that an importer would recoup 22.4% of Section 301 duties it paid on an entry of kids’ erasable e-writing tablets from China.

The Court of International Trade in a May 1 decision made public May 9 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against mandatory respondent Risen Energy Co., though it remanded the methodology used to come up with the AFA rate. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce failed to pick from facts available and "instead created facts by manipulating evidence on the record."

The Court of International Trade on May 8 sent back the Commerce Department's treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and hedging revenues due to issues in how the agency addressed the elements contemporaneously in the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey.

Antidumping duty petitioner American HFC Coalition took to the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's decision not to use Mexico as the primary surrogate nation in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on hydrofluorocarbon blends from China (The American HFC Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00071).