The International Trade Commission violated the law by failing to either conduct a changed circumstances review or reconsider its original antidumping neglibility decision in a sunset review, Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) argued in a group of three related complaints at the Court of International Trade. After another exporter, Colakoglu Dis Ticaret, was revoked from the AD order following court proceedings, the ITC illegally denied any opportunity for Colakoglu's imports to be excluded from the antidumping duty injury proceeding, Erdemir said (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #22-00349, #22-00350, #22-00351).

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 22 opinion granted plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee's motion for a preliminary injunction in an Enforce and Protect Act case. Judge Richard Eaton ruled that the plaintiff sufficiently proved that it will be "immediately and irreparably" harmed without the injunction barring liquidation of importer Kingtom Aluminio's aluminum extrusions until the litigation has ended. The judge further ruled that the industry group has a "'fair chance' of success on the meritsm" given that there have been several cases with the same merchandise and parties where CBP has asked for voluntary remand or reversed itself.

The first decision of the World Trade Organization's multiparty interim appeal arbitration arrangement, or MPIA, was judiciously economical, and also gave more deference to countries' antidumping authorities, trade experts said.

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 21 upheld the Commerce Department's pick of Brazil as the main surrogate country in an antidumping duty investigation on wood moldings and millwork from China. After clarifying the controlling question of the case is whether a "reasonable mind" could conclude that Commerce chose the best available information, Judge Gary Katzmann sustained the agency's pick of Brazil over Malaysia.

A World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel found the U.S. violated global trade rules by requiring goods made in Hong Kong to be marked as being made in China. Submitting its ruling Dec. 21, the three-arbitrator panel found the U.S. measures inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, saying the U.S. failed to show the moves were made in response to an "emergency in international relations." The U.S. argued the change in the origin requirement was needed to safeguard American national security.

The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 21 opinion denied U.S. Steel Corp.'s motion to intervene in a case brought by Seneca Foods Corp. on the Commerce Department's denial of Section 232 exclusion requests. The trade court cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in California Steel Industries v. U.S., in which the appellate court denied U.S. Steel the right to intervene in a different Section 232 exclusion denial challenge. Judge Gary Katzmann ruled that this precedent establishes that the steel maker doesn't have the right to intervene under the trade court's rules.

The Commerce Department cannot set the all-others rate in an antidumping duty review by taking a simple average of a de minimis and an adverse facts available rate, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Dec. 21 opinion. Sending the case back to Commerce for the fifth time, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves cited a key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that made the same determination. The judge said that the court's rules "require the just and speedy determination of every action and proceeding," so the agency should refrain from "submitting the same unreasonable-as-applied, punitive all-others separate rate."

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 a Dec. 20 opinion denied an injunction bid pending appeal from certain plaintiffs in an attorney conflict-of interest suit. After recently rejecting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Gary Katzmann this time rejected the injunction motion pending appeal since the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "has not yet been noticed," but even if it had, the injunction "is unwarranted." Katzmann said that the plaintiffs fail to both show a "strong showing of success on the merits" and prove that they will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.

The Court of International Trade should dismiss a case from importer Southern Cross Seafood involving the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) for lack of jurisdiction, the U.S. argued in a Dec. 19 motion. Measures involving the CCAMLR belong exclusively at district courts and the statute "could not be more clear," the brief said. The case challenges the National Marine Fisheries Service's decision to deny Southern Cross' application for preapproval to import Chilean sea bass (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).