The report from the commerce secretary concluding a Section 232 investigation is not "purely advisory" and actually gives the president a new power to regulate trade, so it "must be subject to judicial review" under the Administrative Procedure Act, petitioners led by USP Holdings argued at the U.S. Supreme Court in a March 2 brief (USP Holdings v. United States, U.S.C. # 22-565).

Taiwanese exporter Inventec Solar Energy Corp. (ISEC) had constructive knowledge that sales to JA Solar USA were destined for the U.S., so those sales should be included as U.S. sales in the antidumping duty rate calculated for ISEC in an administrative review on solar products from Taiwan, the Commerce Department said in March 2 remand results (JA Solar International v. United States, CIT # 21-00514).

The Court of International Trade on March 3 granted two plaintiff-intervenors' motion for a preliminary injunction stopping liquidation for their entries, rejecting government arguments that the injunction would have impermissibly expanded the issues in the case. Citing past CIT judgments, Judge Mark Barnett held that the enlargement concept is only reserved for cases where an intervenor adds new legal claims to those already before the court.

The Court of International Trade on March 3 upheld the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty case that slashed the dumping margin for respondent Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipe Industries after the agency accepted the company's answers to the Section A quesitonnaire response. CIT's order came after neither Ajmal nor AD petitioner Wheatland Tube submitted comments on the remand.

Solar panel mounts made by China Custom Manufacturing do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a March 2 opinion. Upholding the Court of International Trade, judges Pauline Newman, Raymond Chen and Tiffany Cunningham said the matter is "governed squarely" by the appellate court's ruling in Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. U.S., which said a "part or subassembly ... cannot be a finished product."

The Commerce Department failed in its obligation to calculate an accurate rate for a Kazakh exporter in a countervailing duty investigation when it unjustifiably rejected the exporter's questionnaire response, despite the response being only two hours late, the exporter, Tau-Ken Temir, said in the opening brief of its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).

The Court of International Trade should deny a motion for a preliminary injunction by two plaintiff-intervenors because granting that injunction would expand the case beyond its original issues in violation of Supreme Court rulings, DOJ argued in its Feb. 28 response at the Court of International Trade. By requesting an injunction that covers entries not initially subject to the proceeding filed by Jilin Bright, plaintiff-intervenors seek to expand the issues covered by the proceeding, DOJ argued (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 27 decision denied importer Crown Cork & Seal USA's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in a customs penalty case. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that, contrary to Crown Cork's characterization, the fraud claim is sufficiently specific and both claims clear the notice requirements of Rule 8 as set in the Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal cases.

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 rejected the Commerce Department's imposition of a total adverse facts available rate of 154.33% on antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners as the result of one 16-minutes-late submission, in a Feb. 15 opinion made public Feb. 27. Judge M. Miller Baker said the lawsuit was "not a close case," blasting Commerce's inadequate explanation for why one late submission due to a filing difficulty was enough to conclude that Oman Fasteners failed to cooperate to the best of its ability or why the company deserved the punitive rate.