The U.S. on Sept. 30 told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Court of International Trade erred in rejecting its efforts to redact parts of the trade court's decision sustaining an International Trade Commission injury determination. The government said CIT "abused its discretion" in publicly disclosing information marked by the commission as business confidential (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

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.

Importer 3BTech asked the Court of International Trade to award it attorney's fees in a tariff classification case associated with the company's efforts in resolving the issue of the government's untimely submission of expert declarations. 3BTech said the U.S. willfully violated its disclosure obligations and "blindsided both" the company and the court by not telling either about its plans to work on the declarations when it requested an extension to file its cross-motion for judgment (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).

Texas-based syringe importer Retractable Technologies took to the Court of International Trade to contest the 100% increase of Section 301 tariffs recently imposed on needles and syringes from China. The complaint is seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the duties, claiming that the tariffs could send the company out of business (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

German paper exporter Koehler further defended its bid for an interlocutory appeal of the Court of International Trade's decision allowing the government to effect service on the company through its U.S. counsel (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

The U.S. asked for a voluntary remand at the Court of International Trade in a suit on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy to reconsider the "single-entity treatment" of exporters Dalmine and Silcotub (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00039).

The U.S. and importer Cozy Comfort traded briefs at the Court of International Trade seeking to discredit the other side's evidence ahead of a bench trial on the classification of the importer's wearable blanket, called The Comfy (Cozy Comfort Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

Responding to exporters and importers of Thai solar panels, the U.S. argued Sept. 25 that it hadn’t unlawfully elevated one relevant factor, research and development, in a circumvention inquiry over the other four. It agreed the Commerce Department had prioritized R&D -- but that was reasonable in context and allowable by statute, it said (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).

The Commerce Department on Sept. 23 said that it can permissibly use "inter-quarter comparisons" in the Cohen's d test while detecting "masked" dumping while using "same-quarter comparisons" in its margin calculations. The agency said that "fluctuating production costs," which call for same-quarter comparisons in calculating antidumping duty margins, "do not introduce distortions into the comparison of U.S. prices with other U.S. prices in the Cohen's d test" (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00113).

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.