The Court of International Trade ruled May 9 that an importer would recoup 22.4% of Section 301 duties it paid on an entry of kids’ erasable e-writing tablets from China.

The Court of International Trade in a May 1 decision made public May 9 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against mandatory respondent Risen Energy Co., though it remanded the methodology used to come up with the AFA rate. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce failed to pick from facts available and "instead created facts by manipulating evidence on the record."

The Court of International Trade on May 8 sent back the Commerce Department's treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and hedging revenues due to issues in how the agency addressed the elements contemporaneously in the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey.

TikTok asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit May 7 to overturn a recently enacted law that will ban the popular social media application in the United States if China’s ByteDance doesn't sell the app to an entity that isn’t controlled by a foreign adversary.

Antidumping duty petitioner American HFC Coalition took to the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's decision not to use Mexico as the primary surrogate nation in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on hydrofluorocarbon blends from China (The American HFC Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00071).

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 U.S. on May 3 defended its claim that anti-forced labor nonprofit International Rights Advocates doesn't have standing to sue CBP over its inaction in responding to a petition alleging cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire is made with forced child labor. Filing a brief in support of its motion to dismiss the suit, the government argued that IRAdvocates can't show injury-in-fact from CBP's purported inaction, and that the Court of International Trade can't compel discretionary law enforcement action in the form of a withhold release order (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).

The presumption of foreign state control in antidumping duty cases doesn't disappear after the exporter presents "minimal contradictory evidence," the government said in a reply brief on May 1 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Contrary to claims made by exporters Aeolus Tyre Co. and Guizhou Tyre Co., the government said, the Commerce Department "has long required respondents to demonstrate autonomy with respect to" all four criteria used to assess freedom from foreign state control, even for companies only minority-owned by a government entity (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

The Court of International Trade on May 2 again sent back the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Emissions Trading System of Korea (K-ETS) was de jure specific. Judge Mark Barnett said Commerce improperly used de facto specificity analysis factors, including data on who received the allotments, in assessing whether the additional permit allocations were specific as a matter of law.

The Court of International Trade on May 2 sustained the Commerce Department's recalculation of exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container's sales expenses in the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. Judge M. Miller Baker said that Sahamitr failed to undermine Commerce's finding that the company's monthly-based calculation of its sales costs were distortive.