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

U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy asked the Court of International Trade for another 3,500 words to reply to arguments from the government and solar cell exporters and importers in the pair's suit on the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Auxin and Concept Clean Energy said opposing counsel either consented or took no position to the motion (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).

In response to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ motion for judgment, the U.S. filed a cross-motion for judgment saying the importers’ products are filters and don’t fall under the “basket provision” for other catalytic reactors (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

The Commerce Department appropriately found that details about U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood's wholesaling operations don't support the company's claim that it was a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, the U.S. argued in a reply brief filed last week at the Court of International Trade. The government said that, as a result, Commerce permissibly found Luscious' request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam to be invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to drop the countervailing duty on exporter Risen Energy Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Jane Restani said the move was in line with the court's prior decision.

New evidence provided by importers found to have evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese plywood after a Royal Brush-driven remand was insufficient to change the ultimate finding of the investigation, the United States said Dec. 13 in response to the importers’ remand redetermination comments (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03914).

The Commerce Department has the power to extend its deadlines for submission of factual information on its own -- without responding to an extension request from a submitting party, the U.S. said in opposition to a domestic boltless steel shelf producer Dec. 13 (Edsal Manufacturing v. United States, CIT # 25-00087).

The Supreme Court on Dec. 18 agreed to take up TikTok's case against the bill either banning the app or forcing it to divest its U.S. operations. The court granted the TikTok's petition for writ of certiorari though it deferred its application for an injunction against the bill pending oral argument. Initial briefs in the suit are due by Dec. 27 (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, Sup. Ct. # 24-656).

Correction: Patrick Gill of Sandler Travis served as the attorney for Target during the oral argument session in the Target Corp. v. U.S. case (see 2412060063).

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