Parties in an antidumping duty case at the Court of International Trade continued their dispute on whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo should eliminate any deference shown to the Commerce Department's definition of the term "partners" in 19 U.S.C. Section 1677(33) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during oral argument on Sept. 3 strongly questioned the U.S. in a customs case on whether cookware imports from Meyer Corp. qualify for first sale treatment. Judges Sharon Prost, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham questioned the government's defense of the Court of International Trade's decision to deny Meyer first sale valuation seemingly based on an adverse inference drawn against the company for its failure to submit its parent company's financial information (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1570).

German paper exporter Koehler asked the Court of International Trade on Aug. 30 to certify for immediate appeal its decision allowing service on the company via its U.S. counsel. Koehler said the issue of service in the case is "appropriate for prompt review" by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since the issue is a novel one for both CIT and CAFC and "entirely separate from the underlying merits of the case" (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 granted Seko Customs Brokerage's bid to voluntarily dismiss its case against CBP's temporary suspension of the brokerage from the Entry Type 86 pilot and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs at the Court of International Trade. Counsel for Seko didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Seko Customs Brokerage v. United States, CIT # 24-00097).

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 made no changes to its final results of the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, which was on remand at the Court of International Trade after the court sent back three elements of the review (see 2405090045). The court sent back Commerce's valuation of solar glass using Romanian import prices, valuation of air freight using Freightos data and use of partial adverse facts available against exporter Risen Energy Co. (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00219).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 28 denied both the government's and importer HyAxiom's motions for judgment in a customs classification case on PC50 supermodules, which are a part of a stationary hydrogen fuel cell generator known as the PureCell Model 400. Judge Timothy Stanceu said a factual determination is needed on whether the PC50's "principal function" is gas generation.

The Commerce Department didn’t rely on inaccurate data to reach a zero percent dumping margin for a mattress exporter, the U.S. said Aug. 26. It said any apparent data inconsistencies were simply the result of the department’s own estimation model, used to fill in information that the exporter hadn’t tracked (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. U.S., CITConsol. # 21-00277).

Exporter Yingli Energy (China) Co. filed a complaint on Aug. 28 at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's denial of its separate rate application in the 10th review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, claiming that it showed its independence from Chinese state control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).

The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade lowered the dumping margin for exporter Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora, known as Supermel, from an 83.72% adverse facts available rate to a 10.52% mark. The agency made the switch in the AD investigation on raw honey from Brazil after incorporating the court's finding that Supermel's failure to reconcile its costs with its beekeeper suppliers' costs was immaterial to the calculation of the AD rate (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).