The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 24 order granted the U.S. motion to enter an amended protective order in Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The order dismissed Ninestar's motion to compel the unredacted administrative record as moot, while clarifying that the order was issued "without prejudice to the parties' rights to petition the court to further modify the terms of the APO" or their right to challenge the designation of materials as confidential under the APO (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Commerce Department flipped its position on remand to find that exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. didn't use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, though it did continue to find that the exporter benefited from the provision of caustic soda and synthetic yarn for less than adequate remuneration (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00402).

The Commerce Department failed to link its finding of the Chinese government's control over exporter Pirelli Tyre Co.'s management to the company's export activities, Pirelli told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Oct. 24 opening brief. The agency "adopted an unlawful interpretation and application of the rebuttable presumption" of government control as part of the 2017-18 antidumping duty review of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, the brief said (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).

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 in an Oct. 23 opinion denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' motion for a partial stay of enforcement of a judgment in its suit against President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto "derivative" products while the decision is on appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court. Judges Jennifer Choe-Groves, M. Miller Baker and Timothy Stanceu said that PrimeSource "has not met its burden of demonstrating its entitlement to a different outcome than that reached by" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when that court denied a similar stay bid by the importer.

A finding of evasion against Skyview Cabinet USA was arbitrary and capricious because CBP failed to establish that the subject wooden cabinets and vanities were covered merchandise at the time they were made and because CBP failed to follow Enforce and Protect Act procedures when it applied adverse inferences, Skyview said in its Oct. 23 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., Masterbrand Cabinets Inc., Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).

The Commerce Department wasn't required to issue exporter Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer a questionnaire for purposes of giving the company a separate antidumping duty rate, the U.S. government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 20 reply brief. The government said 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1) -- the statute relied on by Jin Tiong to claim that Commerce can't limit the number of respondents when the number is small -- doesn't speak to a process that Commerce must follow in carrying out its separate rate examinations (Repwire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 order granted the U.S. request for a remand in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case to review the implications of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court found CBP's failure to grant Enforce and Protect Act respondents access to the confidential information in the proceeding violated their due process rights (Newtrend USA Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00347).

The Commerce Department legally found that the Korean government didn't provide a countervailable benefit through its provision of electricity to respondents in the countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Oct. 23. Judges Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham said Commerce sufficiently carried out a less-than-adequate-remuneration (LTAR) analysis after its original preferential rate analysis fell short before the appellate court in 2019.

The Commerce Department properly saddled countervailing duty respondent Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. (GRT) with adverse facts available related to its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 20 opinion. While Commerce and the trade court have rejected the use of AFA for this program where a respondent can submit verifications that their U.S. buyers didn't use the program, Judge Mark Barnett sustained AFA here since GRT failed to raise its claims against the use of AFA administratively.