Chinese exporter Changzhou Trina Solar Energy's case was severed from a consolidated action in the Court of International Trade because the other plaintiffs are appealing the trade court's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a June 9 order said. Trina originally filed its lawsuit in CIT to challenge the final results of the fourth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. As a result of the CIT decision, Trina's total CVD rate dropped from 9.12% to 2.93%. CIT also ordered entries related to Trina's case liquidated (Canadian Solar Inc. et al v. United States, CIT Consol. #18-00184).

The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases challenging CBP's Enforce and Protect Act administrative review on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, a June 8 order said. The two now-consolidated plaintiffs, Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group, were subject to an EAPA investigation for allegedly evading antidumping duties on pipe fittings from China by transshipping them through Vietnam. IPPG's case, filed under case number #21-00193, will be consolidated under Norca's case, #21-00192. Both parties alleged due process violations under the EAPA investigation and claimed that the AD order does not cover their imported products (Norca Industrial Co., LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00192).

The U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled oral argument for 10 a.m. June 17 via Webex on the preliminary injunction Section 301 sample case plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated customs entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. Akin Gump lawyers for HMTX and Jasco last week asked for oral argument (see 2106070017). They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate that the plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful. The Justice Department opposes the injunction.

Even if the Commerce Department did not act within its authority when deciding not to include the views of countertop fabricators in its industry support determination before beginning an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on quartz surface products from India, the agency still had the requisite level of industry support and the authority to start the investigation anyway, petitioner Cambria Company said in a June 9 brief backing the Department of Justice's defense in a case at the Court of International Trade (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, CIT #20-00127).

An importer’s lawsuit claiming it should have been assessed AD duties at a lower import-specific antidumping duty rate has run into jurisdictional issues, and a recently filed amended complaint from the importer that was accepted by the Court of International Trade on June 9 aims to clear them up.

Steel rebar importer Power Steel Co. paid Section 232 duties on its imports, and those payments were eligible to be deducted from its U.S. price in an antidumping case, the Department of Justice argued in a June 9 brief in the Court of International Trade (Power Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #20-03771).

The Commerce Department "finally" came to a conclusion in an antidumping administrative review on large power transformers from South Korea that is in line with "record facts, the law and basic standards of investigative fairness," mandatory respondent Hyosung Heavy Industries Corporation said in June 7 comments on remand results. Joined by the other mandatory respondent Hyundai Heavy Industries and the Department of Justice, Hyosung voiced its approval of the remand results in the Court of International Trade, which scrapped the application of total adverse facts available after DOJ requested a voluntary remand to "reconsider" the original determinations (Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT #18-00066).

The Department of Justice takes too narrow a view on when labeling qualifies as printed material in the tariff schedule, Amcor Flexibles Kreuzlingen said in a June 7 brief responding to DOJ’s motion for judgment in a classification case at the Court of International Trade. Amcor argues that the printed labeling on its pharmaceutical packaging is of primary importance, and the packaging should as a result be classified in heading 4911 as printed matter, rather than as aluminum foil of heading 7607.

Akin Gump lawyers for the Section 301 sample case plaintiffs, HMTX Industries and Jasco Products, asked the Court of International Trade to hold oral argument on the preliminary injunction they seek to freeze the liquidation of unliquidated entries from China with lists 3 and 4A tariff exposure. “This unprecedented litigation concerns billions of dollars, over 3,800 separate lawsuits, and an even larger number of individual plaintiffs,” their June 4 motion said. They filed for the injunction April 23 after the government refused to stipulate that the plaintiffs will be entitled to refunds of liquidated entries if they win the litigation and the court declares the tariffs unlawful. The government opposes the injunction and stands by its refusal of the stipulation due to the “uncertainty” of the case law on refund relief, it said May 14 (see 2105170007).

The Commerce Department should have used the highest margin for the sole mandatory respondent in an antidumping case since the agency decided to rely on adverse facts available in the investigation, domestic silicon metal producers Globe Specialty Metals and Mississippi Silicon said in a June 7 complaint in the Court of International Trade. The two producers also challenged Commerce's decision to disregard that rate based on a financial statement from a firm "whose financial results were dominated by operations unrelated to the production of silicon metal" (Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. and Mississippi Silicon LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00231).