Judge Mark Barnett of the Court of International Trade indicated in March 19 oral arguments that he is leaning toward remanding a case about the application of an adverse facts available rate to an exporter that missed an unusual 10 a.m. filing deadline by five hours (Cambria Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to rely on "other information" instead of polling the industry to calculate industry support for the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. But Judge Claire Kelly sent back the industry support decision due to accuracy concerns on the data Commerce relied on, including on whether "finishing operations were counted twice."

The Commerce Department released the final version of regulations on March 22 that will make various key changes in the administration of antidumping and countervailing duty regulations. The changes take effect April 24.

The Court of International Trade on March 20 denied U.S. company Deer Park Glycine's bid to consolidate its two cases before the trade court. One case is challenging the Commerce Department's scope ruling which excluded calcium glycinate from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine from India, Japan, Thailand and China, while the other contests Commerce's rejection of a second scope ruling request on the same product.

The Court of International Trade on March 20 upheld the International Trade Commission's decision not to cumulate Brazil's imports with the other countries included in the five-year sunset review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the U.K.

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.

Proposed intervenors in a lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels further defended their motion to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy wrongly characterize the suit as being a Section 1581(i) action (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 19 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to grant respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals a constructed export price offset in the antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India, despite finding that the company failed to establish the amount and nature of the offset.

The Court of International Trade on March 18 said that the U.S. waited too long to send surety firm Aegis Security Insurance Co. a bill for an unpaid customs bond on Chinese garlic imports that entered in 2004. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the government's eight-year delay in demanding the payment from Aegis "was unreasonable and a breach of contract." The court said the delay broke the "reasonable time requirement" -- an "implied contractual term."

In a March 18 brief supporting a Jan. 24 motion to dismiss (see 2401230040), the U.S. again argued in a case involving the antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it “is, or could have been” available under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).