The Court of International Trade on Feb. 22 again remanded the Commerce Department's use of total adverse facts available against exporter Meihua and its affiliate in an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum from China. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said Meihua properly submitted information on the duties it paid, and its submission of its data 56 days before the antidumping review's preliminary results wasn't "untimely."

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 21 that solar companies and industry groups led by the Solar Energy Industries Association failed to show that an en banc rehearing was needed for a decision upholding President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

Exporter Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade to contest a withhold release order on the company and CBP's rejection of the exporter's petition to be removed from the WRO. The company, which goes by Jiaxing Hoshine, said the WRO has done "significant and irreparable damage" to its business and reputation and that CBP has skirted the law by failing to disclose the evidence it used in issuing the WRO (Hoshine Silicon (Jia Xing) Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00048).

A World Trade Organization dispute panel on Feb. 20 found a U.S. attempt to revisit part of its countervailing duty laws as they pertain to subsidies on agricultural products violated the nation's WTO commitments. The panel said the U.S. failed to implement the findings of a previous dispute panel ruling, which said these same laws cut against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in relation to a subsidy finding on ripe olives from Spain.

Importer Trijicon's tritium-powered gun sights are "lamps" and not "apparatus," slotting them under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9405, the Court of International Trade ruled on Feb. 16. Judge Mark Barnett said the gun sights do not meet definition of "apparatus" put forward by either Trijicon or the government, who respectively defined the term as a set of materials or equipment and a complex device. The court instead found that the products "are readily classified as lamps," which are defined as "any of various devices for producing light."

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 on Feb. 20 rejected a Commerce Department scope ruling finding R210-S engines made by Chonging Rato Technology Co. fall within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and up to 225cc and parts thereof from China.

Georgia woman Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois filed suit at the Court of International Trade Feb. 16 to contest six questions on the October 2021 customs broker license exam. In her complaint, Stoute-Francois said that after appealing the test results to the Treasury Department, she was left just short of the 75% grade needed to pass the test, failing at 73.75% (Skeeter-Jo Stoute-Francois v. U.S., CIT # 24-00046).

A draft text on World Trade Organization dispute settlement reform efforts was released Feb. 16, ahead of the 13th Ministerial Conference, which is set to be held Feb. 26-29. In all, the text includes 11 sections, covering issues including alternative dispute resolution procedures and arbitration, panel proceedings, compliance and transparency. Notably, the text doesn't include any discussion of the appeal or review mechanism, which is seen as the largest sticking point in reform talks.

The U.S. opened a customs penalty lawsuit against California importer Rago Tires, alleging that the company avoided antidumping and countervailing duty orders on truck and bus tires from China. The government is looking to collect $56,435.48 from Rago, quadruple the amount of duties the company allegedly failed to pay (U.S. v. Rago Tires, CIT # 24-00043).