Domestic producers do have standing to bring their case challenging emergency duty relief granted to solar cell importers to the trade court, those producers, led by Auxin Solar, said Dec. 19 (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 denied importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel's bid to amend a preliminary injunction in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty evasion case to not enjoin the liquidation of steel trailer wheels that the Commerce Department has found to fall outside the scope of the relevant AD/CVD orders. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Lionshead failed to "demonstrate changed circumstances that warrant the modification of the preliminary injunction."

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 20 sustained the Commerce Department's use of surrogate financial statements from Emirates Sleep Systems Private Limited in the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Vietnam, despite various objections from exporters led by Ashley Furniture Industries. Judge Timothy Reif said Commerce reasonably found the statements to be complete, publicly available and the best information available.

The Commerce Department adjusted exporter Trina Solar’s U.S. price in an antidumping duty review for subsidies from three programs it had countervailed in an accompanying countervailing duty review, finding, after remand, that the programs were export-contingent. It again declined to adjust Trina’s U.S. price by three other programs (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 declined to grant victory to G&H Diversified Manufacturing on the importer's claims that CBP previously, as part of its role in granting a Section 232 duty exclusion, already said the company's imports were subject to the exclusion. Judge Timothy Reif said open questions of fact still exist with regard to the extent of CBP's role in the exclusion process.

Importer Performance Additives told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the notion that Congress created a "two-track framework" for deemed liquidation of drawback claims where some claims aren't subject to deemed liquidation at all and others aren't subject to any time limit on liquidation is "nonsense." Filing a reply brief last week, the company said this interpretation of the statutory framework is "blatantly contrary to Congress' stated intent" (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).

The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions sustained the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China and the agency's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD order's 34th review. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce reasonably found in the 34th review that Tainai was aware of its unaffiliated suppliers' past non-cooperation but failed to work to the best of its ability to secure their cooperation.

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 Commerce Department failed to justify its de facto specificity finding regarding the South Korean government's provision of electricity below cost in the 2021 review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public Dec. 17. Judge Claire Kelly said Commerce didn't lay out a "rational basis" for grouping certain industries together and declaring that the selected industries received a disproportionate benefit from the program.

The Commerce Department failed to consider whether importer Hardware Resources' edge-glued wood boards were wood mouldings and millwork products when it included the goods in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood mouldings and millwork products from China, the Court of International Trade held on Dec. 16. In his first decision since joining the court, Judge Joseph Laroski said Commerce "ignored the threshold question of whether the product at issue is a wood moulding or millwork product."