The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to amend the preliminary injunction in a suit challenging certain Section 301 action on needles and syringes to reflect the government's stipulation that they will refund any Section 301 duties found to have been unlawfully collected on importer Retractable Technologies' entries. Retractable consented to the move (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

The U.S. and an Italian pasta exporter argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 8 over whether the Commerce Department should have distinguished pasta grades using the protein contents reported on the nutritional information that appears on the pasta’s packages or using companies’ internal information (La Molisana v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2060).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 7 sharply questioned both exporter Oman Fasteners' missed deadline in an antidumping duty review and petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire's defense of the 154.33% adverse facts available rate imposed as a result. Judge Kimberly Moore led the way during oral argument, taking Oman Fasteners' attorney Michael Huston to task for seemingly hiding the missed deadline (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

The U.S. argued that mandamus relief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is improper on the question of whether the government properly served exporter Koehler Paper through its U.S. counsel. Responding on Nov. 6 to Koehler's petition for writ of mandamus, the U.S. said mandamus relief isn't "clear and indisputable" and that an appeal from a final order from the Court of International Trade "should not be inadequate" (In re Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit questioned claims from both exporter Dongkuk S&C Co. and the Commerce Department during Nov. 5 oral argument in a suit on the antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from South Korea (Dongkuk S&C Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1419).

The Court of International Trade rejected importer Retractable Technologies' bids for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction stopping the collection of Section 301 duties on its needles and syringes. However, in a decision made public Nov. 4, Judge Claire Kelly did stop liquidation of Retractable's entries during the course of the company's suit, which challenges the legality of a Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes.

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 response to the government (see 2409240057), a Turkish steel exporter again said Nov. 1 that the dates of its U.S. sales should be determined by its contract dates, not the dates on its invoices (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

The U.S. on Nov. 1 defended the Commerce Department's decision on remand to not grant exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals a constructed export price offset in the antidumping duty investigation on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India. The government said Gujarat failed to provide a quantitative analysis that would justify the offset (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).

The Commerce Department reasonably placed greater emphasis on research and development investment when it found that solar cells from Cambodia were circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells from China, the U.S. said. Filing a reply brief to the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29, the government argued that the agency "set forth uncontroverted record evidence to explain that R&D is particularly important to solar producers" and that these investments are key to "technological breakthroughs in the solar industry" (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00221).