Leaning on Loper Bright, Chinese solar cell exporter Yingli Energy pushed back against the Commerce Department’s usual presumption that exporters in nonmarket economies are under governmental control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).

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

The International Trade Commission "largely ignored" data trends in finding there to be significant price effects and an adverse impact caused by shipments of aluminum lithographic printing plates from China and Japan, exporter Fujifilm Corp. argued in a Jan. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The company also challenged the commission's decision to include its affiliate, Fujifilm-Greenwood, in the domestic industry and finding of significant adverse volume effects (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00251).

In a complaint filed Jan. 15, steel wire exporter Tree Island said CBP erroneously assessed Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs on 11 of its entries (Tree Island Industries v. United States, CIT # 25-00019).

Responding to a second remand order by the Court of International Trade, the Commerce Department again chose to calculate review respondent Officine Technosider’s costs quarterly, rather than annually. It said its decision made sense despite the “unique situation” in which Commerce had access to only one quarter of Officine’s U.S. sales data (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00001).

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

The United States on Jan. 13 joined plaintiff Elysium Tile in supporting the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand. Elysium said in its own comments that it was satisfied with Commerce’s new report of an ex parte meeting held with its competitor during a scope ruling proceeding (see 2412030060) (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

A food supplement producer’s products are dietary supplements, not food dyes or additives, the U.S. said Jan. 10 in a cross-motion for summary judgment filed in a case dating back to 2012 (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).

Petitioner The Mosaic Company brought two separate complaints to the Court of International Trade Jan. 13 contesting parts of the Commerce Department’s second countervailing duty review on Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer, respectively (The Mosaic Company v. United States, CIT #s 24-00229, -230).

The Pentagon defended its decision to designate Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology as a Chinese military company, filing a cross-motion for judgment in Hesai's case against its designation at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (see 2412110023). DOD said substantial evidence backs its finding that Hesai is a "military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base," arguing that Hesai failed to appreciate that the "combined weight" of all the evidence supports the designation (Hesai Technology Co. v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-01381).