An Indian quartz countertop exporter had the 323.12% adverse facts available antidumping duty assigned to it remanded by the Court of International Trade on May 28.

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 was wrong to rule that imported calendar planners should be classified by CBP as diaries instead of calendars, the importer said in its opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 24 (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

The Court of International Trade last week remanded the Commerce Department's finding that Germany's Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) program, which exempts a fee for gas and power pipeline companies that sell electricity below a certain price point that would otherwise be passed onto consumers, wasn't a specific subsidy. Judge Claire Kelly sent the case back for the fourth time, finding that the agency must further investigate whether an alleged subsidy is de facto specific when facts give "reasons to believe" the subsidy may be de facto specific.

Another petitioner spoke up in favor of the International Trade Commission's redaction of confidential business information after the commission was taken to task for allegedly going too far by Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden (see 2404010066). (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

Lawyers gave feedback this week on recently issued Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty regulations, with at least one attorney saying the changes were mostly positive for petitioners. They also discussed challenges faced by different parties during International Trade Commission investigations, and they said they sided with the ITC in its ongoing defense of its treatment of confidential information at the Court of International Trade.

The Chevron doctrine will almost certainly be overturned soon by the Supreme Court, leaving the path forward for judicial deference unclear, panelists said at Georgetown University Law Center’s 45th Annual International Trade Update.

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.

U.S. Steel Corp. moved for leave to join importer California Steel Industries' case challenging rejections of its requests for Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusions as amicus curiae, after its efforts to intervene in the suit were thwarted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said on May 20 that the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties.