The Court of International Trade in a July 17 decision made public July 25 sent back the Commerce Department's use of exporter Prochamp's German sales as the comparison market in an antidumping duty investigation. Judge M. Miller Baker said that since the agency didn't know what percentage of the company's German sales were actually for consumption in Germany, Commerce's use of the comparison market was unsupported.

The Court of International Trade denied Seko Customs Brokerage's bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against its temporary suspension from the Entry Type 86 Test and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs. Judge Claire Kelly found Seko already received all the relief it sought when it was conditionally reinstated into the programs and told why it was originally suspended.

Litigants sparred at a July 23 oral argument at the Court of International Trade on whether the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on steel wheels from China cover wheels shipped from Thailand with either a rim or a disc made in China. The parties disagreed on whether a prior scope ruling from the Commerce Department spoke to whether these "mixed" goods -- wheels made with either a Chinese-origin rim or disc, but not both -- are covered by the AD/CVD scope (Asia Wheel v. United States, CIT # 23-00096).

The Court of International Trade on July 23 said CBP didn't have the authority to extend an order from the court enjoining liquidation of various entries to imports entered by Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply. Judge Mark Barnett dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that because Acquisition 362 wasn't a party to a separate case challenging the antidumping duty rate assessed on the company's goods, it wasn't subject to the court's order suspending liquidation of various tire entries.

CBP refused to explain why it denied a vehicle parts importer's protest after the agency liquidated its entry at a rate 78.55 percentage points higher than it had been assigned in a past antidumping duty review, the importer said in a July 23 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Strategic Import Supply v. U.S., CIT # 24-00124).

U.S. solar cell company Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy argued on July 22 that Section 318(a) of the Trade Act of 1930 didn't permit the Commerce Department to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these products from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

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.

In a pair of opinions published July 22, Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif granted motions from defendant-intervenors (see 2305190068) and the International Trade Commission (see 2309010004) to dismiss two cases brought by Turkish steel exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari regarding the same sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey.

The U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19 that importer Nutricia North America's medical foods should be classified as "food preparations" and not "medicaments" (Nutricia North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision upending the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes requires a more demanding review of the Office of Foreign Assets Control's use of the Global Magnitsky Act and International Emergency Economic Powers Act, sanctioned Mir Rahman Rahmani and his son, Hafi Ajmal Rahmani, argued (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).