The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave text-only notice to exporter Canadian Solar that it failed to respond to the court's notice of oral argument in an appeal on the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Exporter Risen Energy Co. filed the appeal to claim that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). While Risen waived its right to appear at oral argument (see 2408020019), the court told Canadian Solar that failure to respond to notice of oral argument "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 5 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to lower the countervailing duty subsidy rate for exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, from 10.54% to 0.87%. The result is a final, recalculated 22.2% total subsidy rate for Yama in the 2017 administrative review of the CVD order on narrow woven ribbons from China.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The chair and ranking member of the House Select Committee on China, along with a bipartisan group of 53 representatives, filed an amicus brief last week in the suit against the TikTok ban to support the constitutionality of the ban (see 2406070023) (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).

Parts of the expert testimony submitted by the U.S. in a criminal export control case should be excluded from the trial because the experts relied on State Department commodity-jurisdiction determinations prepared outside the court, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky said July 31. The court said the defendants didn't have a chance to cross-examine the State Department officials who prepared the determinations because they didn't offer testimony during trial.

Citing untimeliness, the U.S. on Aug. 2 sought partial dismissal of a case brought by an aluminum rod importer alleging that the Commerce Department had denied its Section 232 tariff exclusion request on the basis of promises made by a competitor (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

Cruise Car, Inc. on Aug. 1 voluntarily dismissed its 2020 customs case against the United States. The golf cart company never filed a complaint (Cruise Car, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03933).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. opposed Turkish exporter Habas Sinai's motions to intervene as an intervenor in an antidumping case and for an injunction on the liquidation of its entries, arguing that Habas' entries are already liquidated and that the company offers no "good cause" for its delay for timely seeking an injunction from the court (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

The Commerce Department chose the wrong primary surrogate country in its antidumping duty review on aluminum foil from China, multiple exporters argued in a motion for judgment July 29. The department chose Romania, citing minor factors of production and slightly more contemporaneous data, over Malaysia and Bulgaria, which were more accurate, they claimed (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).