The Commerce Department erred in finding that seafood seller Luscious Seafood didn't qualify as a "bona fide wholesaler of domestic like product" during the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, Luscious said in a May 1 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Luscious Seafood v. U.S., CIT # 24-00069).

Importers’ and exporters’ criticism of a continued injury finding on remand, including one argument that the International Trade Commission had relied on trade publications instead of the exporters’ own questionnaire responses (see 2403040049), was simply their unlawful attempt to have the commission “reweigh” the evidence to reach their own preferred result, the ITC said April 29 (OCP S.A. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential May 1 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's eighth review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly's text-only version of the opinion sent back Commerce's "determination of the review specific rate applicable to JA Solar and BYD." In a letter, Kelly gave the parties until May 8 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00219).

Importer North American Interpipe and exporter Interpipe Ukraine reached a settlement with the Commerce Department in the companies' lawsuit seeking a deduction in the exporter's U.S. price by the amount of Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs paid in an antidumping duty proceeding. The parties agreed that within 10 days of the court entering judgment, Commerce will amend the final results of the first administrative review of the AD order on oil country tubular goods from Ukraine and set the AD margin for Interpipe Ukraine at 0.01% (Interpipe Ukraine v. United States, CIT # 22-00066).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. announced April 26 that it's dropping fraud charges it brought in 2002 against Frontier Insurance Co., the surety for Lee-Hunt International, because Frontier no longer exists (U.S. v. Lee-Hunt International, Inc., CIT # 02-00816).

Exporter Hyundai Steel Co. on April 26 said that the U.S. attempted to "shield itself under the blanket of" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 1999 decision in AK Steel v. U.S. in its bid to countervail the Port of Incheon program in South Korea. However, AK Steel is "inapposite" for the present case since it came at a time before the existing Uruguay Round Agreements Act CVD statute and, as such, didn't contemplate the provision on what constitutes a countervailable benefit (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).

The U.S. opposed solar panel exporters’ motion for judgment in a case on an antidumping duty review on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China, saying that the Commerce Department had been right to only adjust a mandatory respondent’s antidumping duty by countervailing subsidy duties on the export-contingent programs used by the respondent (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).

Exporter Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. responded to a host arguments from the U.S. regarding the Commerce Department's surrogate value calculations on a variety of activated carbon inputs as part of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China. In a reply brief filed last week at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Carbon Activated said the Court of International Trade erred in sustaining Commerce's surrogate financial ratios and surrogate values for carbonized metal, coal tar, hydrochloric acid, steam and ocean freight (Carbon Activated v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).

A Chinese brick exporter fought back April 29 against opposition to its motion for judgment by the U.S. (see 2402130053) and domestic producers (see 2403120068), saying that its products weren't circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on magnesia carbon bricks from China because the products are actually magnesia alumina graphite bricks, which are duty-free. The Commerce Department is “cherry-picking” evidence from prior scope rulings to prove otherwise, it said (Fedmet Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00117).