Importers Yellow Bird and Vantage Point filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade July 18 arguing that a 1955 Jaguar race car, driven in competitions by multiple Australian racing drivers, is a collector's item, not a used motor vehicle (Yellowbird Enterprises v. U.S., CIT # 24-00121).

The Court of International Trade on July 18 sent back the Commerce Department's decision to include importer Elysium Tile's composite tile within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. Judge Jane Restani said the "complexity of Elysium's processes" shows that the company's tile underwent more than "minor processing," which would have kept the goods in the orders' scope.

The Court of International Trade properly rejected the Commerce Department's decision to set the separate rate respondents' antidumping duty margin by averaging a zero percent rate and an adverse facts available rate, exporter Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing a reply brief July 17, the exporter said Commerce failed to support its use of the averaged rates and that the agency ultimately arrived at the correct determination: a zero percent margin for the separate rate companies (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).

Ildico, importer of luxury Richard Mille watches, told the Court of International Trade that the U.S. is seeking to "distract from the legal issue" in the case by claiming that Ildico allegedly can't prove the characteristics of the watches (Ildico v. United States, CIT # 18-00136).

The U.S. told the Court of International Trade on July 15 that importer CVB cannot meet constitutional or statutory standing to challenge the Commerce Department's scope decision finding that seven models of wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (CVB v. United States, CIT # 24-00036).

Citing the recent overturning of Chevron, a Belgium citrate exporter on July 12 attacked the Commerce Department’s method of determining whether an administrative review respondent has faced “significant” cost fluctuations during their period of review (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).

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 Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 doesn't require payouts of interest assessed after liquidation, known as delinquency interest, to affected domestic producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said July 15. Judges Alan Lourie, Kara Stoll and Tiffany Cunningham said that the statute only provides for interest that's "earned on" antidumping and countervailing duties and "assessed under" the associated AD or CVD order.

Countervailing duty respondent Riverside Plywood and its cross-owned affiliate Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. said the Commerce Department improperly used adverse facts available to find that all of its input suppliers were government authorities (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00106).

The Commerce Department in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on July 12 nudged exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals' antidumping duty rate from 10.01% to 10.36% after reversing its decision to grant the company a constructed export price offset (Daikin America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00122).