U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood argued on Sept. 13 that the Commerce Department misinterpreted the statute when it found that the company didn't qualify as a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product. As a result of its finding, Commerce found Luscious' request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).

Responding to a trade court remand order (see 2404230031), the Commerce Department said it has reconsidered its decision and chosen to apply the subsidies received by unaffiliated suppliers of lumber to a few expedited Canadian lumber review respondents -- though this ultimately had no effect on those respondents’ countervailing duty rates (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).

A U.S. importer of mattresses from Burma brought an action to the Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 challenging the International Trade Commission’s final results of a critical circumstances review (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 11 denied a motion for rehearing from the governments of Canada and Quebec and exporter Marmen Inc. regarding the court's decision sustaining the countervailability of a Canadian tax program. All the judges in regular active service -- Judges Kimberly Moore, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark -- agreed to deny the petition (Government of Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).

Antidumping petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 12 challenging the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigations on paper shopping bags from Colombia and Portugal (Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags v. United States, CIT #'s 24-00157, -00158).

The U.S. on Sept. 10 opposed importer Interglobal Forest's bid for attorney's fees after it prevailed in an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. The government said Interglobal can't be considered a "prevailing party" because the court's decision sustaining CBP's remand decision reversing its evasion finding didn't "materially alter the legal relationship of the parties" (Interglobal Forest v. United States, CIT # 22-00240).

The United States brought an action Sept. 10 seeking more than $70 million against an importer of aluminum wire from China (U.S. v. Repwire, CIT # 24-00173).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 11 granted a voluntary dismissal bid from conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in their action seeking an import ban on fish from New Zealand's West Coast North Island inshore trawl and inshore set net fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Importer Performance Additives filed its opening brief on Sept. 9 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, claiming that the Court of International Trade erred in finding that various of the company's duty drawback claims weren't "deemed liquidated." The company argued that the trade court imposed conditions on the deemed liquidation rule of 19 U.S.C. Section 1504(a)(2)(A) that don't exist in the statute and imposed the rules of Section 1504(a)(2)(B) despite this law not applying to the company's entries at issue (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).

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.