The International Trade Commission failed to give Russian exporter PAO TMK a chance to comment on issues in the International Trade Commission's negligibility analysis as part of the injury proceeding on seamless pipe from South Korea, Russia and Ukraine, the Court of International Trade ruled. In an Oct. 12 opinion made public Oct. 20, Judge M. Miller Baker said TMK should be able to submit comments on the commission's sole reliance on questionnaire data from one unnamed company, "Company A," on goods from Germany and another unnamed company, "Company B," on goods from Mexico.

Shipping giant Maersk Line owes insurance company Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. over $5.8 million for losing around 57 containers of consumer goods at sea while carrying them from Cambodia and China to Los Angeles, the insurance firm argued in an Oct. 19 complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Starr, the insurer for retail giant Target Corp.'s goods, said the goods were lost due to the "negligence and breach of duty" of Maersk and its employees (Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. v. M/V Maersk Eindhoven, S.D.N.Y. # 23-09177).

The Commerce Department incorrectly found solar panels imported from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to four separate complaints, all filed on Oct. 18 and all asking the Court of International Trade for remand.

The Commerce Department failed to address contradicting that the U.S. industry couldn't timely provide tin mill products when it denied Seneca Foods' requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum duties, the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 18 opinion.

Chinese printer cartridge manufacturer Ninestar Corp. urged the Court of International Trade to order the U.S. to submit the full, unredacted administrative record relating to the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's (FLETF's) decision to add Ninestar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Even though the court has entered a protective order in the case, the government redacted over 99% of its submitted record (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Commerce Department illegally rejected importer LE Commodities' requests for exclusion from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on its imports of stainless steel round bar, the importer argued in an Oct. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade. LE Commodities argued that looking at the record, the "only reasonable conclusion" was that the company cannot obtain these goods in the U.S. market in a "sufficient quantity or quality, on a timely basis to replace the steel it currently imports" (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 23-00220).

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 Commerce Department properly dropped its subsidy finding in a countervailing duty investigation for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals concerning a 30-year land lease to one of its affiliates, Inox Wind Limited, by India's State Industrial Development Corp., the Court of International Trade ruled in an Oct. 13 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu defended his prior remand order in the case, which said that based on Commerce's interpretation of its regulation, the subsidy finding couldn't be legal.

The U.S. failed to fulfill its "simple but fundamental obligation to explain itself" in a lawsuit brought by a Chinese printer cartridge maker challenging its addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the company, Ninestar Corp., said in a reply brief supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction against the listing. Ninestar dubbed the government's response to the PI motion a series of "distractions and desperate reaches," including the U.S. claim that the Court of International Trade lacks jurisdiction because a presumptive ban on Ninestar's goods is not an "embargo" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Imported electronic bicycles were improperly classified by CBP and would have been excluded from Section 301 duties, Washington-based e-bike importer Arba International (doing business as Ariel Rider E-Bikes) said in its Oct. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Arba International v. U.S., CIT # 23-00215).