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).

German exporter Koehler petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus on Oct. 31 to settle the question of whether the company can be served via its U.S. counsel after the Court of International Trade refused to certify the issue for intermediate appeal. Koehler said the issue of whether CIT rules allow service on a foreign dependent through its U.S. counsel "is a basic, undecided question in this Circuit that is likely to recur" (Koehler Oberkirch GmbH v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-106).

The Commerce Department reasonably interpreted the Trade Act of 1930 to pause antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries, the government told the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29. Responding to U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy, the U.S. said the two companies' arguments belie "Congress' broad delegation of rulemaking authority" to respond to an emergency found by the president (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Transportation Department doesn't have "vested authority" to determine whether to admit entries of goods based on whether they comport with federal safety standards, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 30. Judge Lisa Wang said that, as a result, CBP has the relevant admissibility authority and the trade court can hear the case.

The Commerce Department continued to include importer Elysium Tiles' composite tile within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. Submitting remand results to the Court of International Trade on Oct. 29, Commerce said that the imports' marble top layer doesn't remove the tile from the scope of the orders, which covers "ceramic tile with decorative features" (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

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 oral argument, a Chinese aluminum foil exporter and the government discussed Commerce’s procedure for selecting world benchmark prices for an input and for land purchases (Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00133).

The Commerce Department has the authority to countervail currency undervaluation, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Oct. 25. Judge Timothy Reif found that nothing in the text of the countervailing duty statute, the statute's legislative history or legislative or administrative developments prohibit Commerce from imposing CVD due to a country's undervalued currency.

The International Trade Commission legally found on remand that Russian seamless pipe imports are non-negligible, as part of its injury determination on the products, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 25. Judge M. Miller Baker said that CBP made "reasonable estimates" of the amount of in-scope merchandise imported from other nations, as this would affect the negligibility calculation for Russian seamless pipe.

Exporter The Ancientree Co. failed to timely raise a ministerial error allegation regarding an adjustment to its U.S. price in an antidumping duty review, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 24. Judge Mark Barnett said that the Commerce Department's regulations required Ancientree to identify any ministerial errors present in the preliminary results and make all relevant arguments about them in its administrative case brief -- something the company failed to do.