The Court of International Trade abused its discretion by combining a motion for a preliminary injunction against antidumping duty cash deposits with a motion for judgment on the agency record (see 2302280040), AD petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire argued in an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge M. Miller Baker committed "multiple legal and factual errors" in his opinion, issuing the judgment on a record developed via "limited discovery" and displaying multiple errors on the merits, the petitioner claimed (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 12 upheld the Commerce Department's determination that corrosion-resistant steel imports from the United Arab Emirates circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties on corrosion-resistant steel products from China. Judges Pauline Newman, Jimmie Reyna and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce properly supported the circumvention decision through evidence of patterns of trade, level of investment, nature of the production process in the UAE and the extent of the production facilities.

The Court of International Trade on April 11 upheld the Commerce Department's final results of its 2019-2020 antidumping duty administrative review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China, in the face of challenges to Commerce’s surrogate value selection raised by Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products.

The Court of International Trade is considering asking certain plaintiffs in the massive Section 301 litigation how they would like to proceed with claims that are distinct from the ones already decided by the trade court. Speaking at an April 11 status conference with the government and representatives of the 15-member steering committee for the plaintiffs, Judge Mark Barnett asked if the court should ask those plaintiffs whether or not they want to continue to litigate the distinct claims, and if the claims move forward, whether there is any reason to wait to resolve them (In Re Section 301 Cases, CIT # 21-00052).

The Court of International Trade on April 11 dismissed without prejudice a suit from Environment One Corp. seeking to impose a Section 301 exclusion on 31 entries, for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While Judge Mark Barnett ruled against the government's motion to dismiss the case pertaining to 23 of the entries for lack of jurisdiction, the judge ultimately granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case since the plaintiff failed to include key information about the merchandise at issue in the case's amended complaint. Barnett gave Environment One 10 days to file a second amended complaint lest the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Importer Keirton USA is not entitled to $487,198.31 in attorney fees and other expenses incurred during its suit against the U.S. regarding goods CBP seized as drug paraphernalia, the Court of International Trade ruled April 11. Judge Claire Kelly said that because the issue in the case -- whether Washington state law permitted the goods to be imported over the federal ban on drug paraphernalia -- was a novel one and the government had a reasonable basis in law for litigating the issue, Keirton was not entitled to the legal fees.

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 April 11 again sent back the Commerce Department's application of an adverse facts available rate to countervailing duty respondent Risen Energy Co. for its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in the sixth administrative review of the CVD order on solar cells from China. Judge Jane Restani said that Risen provided enough gap-filling information related to 95% of its sales to cover the Chinese government's failure to explain the EBCP.

Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.

The Court of International Trade substituted its own judgment for the Commerce Department's when it overruled the agency's rejection of antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods' (ZASF's) Vietnamese sales as third country sales in an AD review on frozen warmwater shrimp from India, AD petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee argued in its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).