The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Feb. 29 rejected Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against its designation on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the government.

The Solar Energy Industries Association argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used the "right tools" of statutory construction to answer the "wrong question" of agency deference in sustaining President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. Filing a response on Feb. 28 to the government's opposition to SEIA's rehearing en banc motion, the industry group said that the U.S. didn't dispute, and "thus concedes," that the Maple Leaf deferential standard is "deeply out of step" with the law set by the Supreme Court, CAFC and other circuit courts (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

Various solar cell exporters and importers defended their right to intervene in a Court of International Trade lawsuit on the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian nations found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China. Filing a pair of reply briefs, the exporters and importers said they have the right to intervene since they have an "interest in the property or transaction at issue" (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 again sent back the Commerce Department's decision that Indonesian data is not economically comparable to Vietnam as part of its surrogate country selection process, along with the agency's consideration of evidence pertaining to exporter NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company's production information.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 issued an amended decision in a customs case on the tariff classification of five categories of chrome-plated plastic automobile parts after initially deciding the case Dec. 18. The new decision adds a discussion of axle covers, the fifth category of goods, finding them to fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8708 pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 1.

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.

Three U.S. steel companies, Cleveland-Cliffs, Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Turkish exporter Habas failed to show that the Commerce Department's finding that Habas' Turkish lira price, and not the U.S. dollar price, controlled the amount owed by the exporter's customers at the time of payment was unsupported. Filing a reply brief on Feb. 26, the steel companies said Habas' arguments, which were "long on verbiage and obfuscation but short on specificity and clarity," only presumed the agency's finding to be wrong and did not actually show that it was (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).

A government claim that an importer failed to exercise “reasonable care” is not enough for an actual charge of negligence under the customs penalty statute, that importer said Feb. 23 before the Court of International Trade (U.S. v. Katana Racing d/b/a Wheel & Tire Distributors, CIT # 19-00125).

Solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy responded to the U.S. motion to dismiss their suit challenging the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (see 2401230040) (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

Anti-forced labor nonprofit International Rights Advocates said that it has standing to sue CBP over its inaction in responding to a petition alleging that cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire is made with forced child labor. Responding to the government's motion to dismiss (see 2312180058), International Rights Advocates said it suffered a concrete injury by being forced to divert "substantial resources" to "gather and submit additional and updated evidence of forced labor" following CBP's inaction on the petition (International Trade Advocates v. U.S., CIT # 23-00165).