Importer MTD Products dropped its case at the Court of International Trade seeking exclusions from Section 301 China tariffs on its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines. The company filed a complaint in June, claiming that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative established exclusions for engines of its type classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8407.90.1020 and 8407.90.1010 (see 2406060034). Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (MTD Products v. United States, CIT # 22-00174).

The U.S. and an importer reached a settlement in a 2021 classification dispute regarding Chinese-origin light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. Under the deal, the importer’s lights won't be subject to Section 232 tariffs, with a 25% additional duty, but will be subject to Section 301 tariffs (Super Bright LEDs v. U.S., CIT # 21-00099).

The U.S. ignored the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in defending its circumvention finding on exporter Canadian Solar, the solar panel exporter said in a Nov. 15 reply brief. Canadian Solar said the Commerce Department should not be shown "tremendous" deference, as claimed by the U.S., since the agency doesn't have "unbridled authority to make an affirmative finding of circumvention" (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00222).

In short remand results released Nov. 14, the Commerce Department said it was removing the 5.46% Export Buyers' Credit Program rate from a solar cell exporter’s countervailing duty (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00153).

Deficiency notices are only required when the Commerce Department has decided to reject a submission and apply adverse facts available, the government said in oral argument in a case regarding the department’s alleged erroneous failure to apply a constructed export price (CEP) offset to two South Korean steel manufacturers (Wheatland Tube v. U.S., CIT # 22-00160).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 14 dismissed petitioner Aloha Pencil Co.'s case challenging the Commerce Department's recission of the review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, covering entries in 2022-23. The court noted that Aloha Pencil failed to timely file a complaint. Counsel for the company didn't respond to request for comment (Aloha Pencil Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00192).

The Court of International Trade sustained 162 requests for Section 232 steel tariff exclusions submitted by importer California Steel Industries in a confidential decision, though the court remanded 31 separate exclusion denials. Judge M. Miller Baker said that should the Commerce Department grant any of the 31 remanded exclusion requests, it shall tell CBP "to honor them" by extending the exclusions to "otherwise-eligible entries" that had not finally liquidated by the fifth business day after the original exclusion request denials (California Steel Industries v. United States, CIT # 21-00015).

The U.S. corrected a representation it made during Nov. 11 oral argument about whether petitioner Bonney Forge could have attended an on-site verification of respondent Shakti Forge Industries during an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge Corporation v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 14 issued its mandate in a pair of antidumping and countervailing duty scope cases in which it sustained the Commerce Department's inclusion of door thresholds imported by Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products in the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China (see 2410080046). The court said Commerce adequately explained that door thresholds are subassemblies and not qualified for the finished merchandise exception. The court affirmed that subassemblies and finished merchandise are "mutually exclusive categories" (Worldwide Door Components v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).

A U.S. mattress importer on Nov. 12 opposed the government’s motion to dismiss its challenge to the International Trade Commission’s critical circumstances determination on mattresses from Burma, saying that its questionnaire response in the ITC’s investigation was enough to give it standing at the Court of International Trade (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).