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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 29 issued its mandate in a case on the tariff classification of importer RKW Klerks' net wrap products, used in a machine to bale harvested crops. In March, the court said the products are not "parts" of harvesting machinery but in fact are "warp knit fabric," dutiable at 10% under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6005.39.00 (see 2403070047). The court clarified that when an item is "consumable," such as "bullets in a gun, staples in a stapler, or film in a camera," it's not meant solely for use within the machine just because it's used exclusively by the machine. Here, the net wrap is similarly "never a part of the baling machine" since the output product is the net wrap packaged around a hay bale (RKW Klerks v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1210).

Importer Fanuc Robotics America and the U.S. said in an April 26 joint status report that they have reached a settlement agreement on one out of the two remaining robot models at issue in their 2012 classification case. Classification of the last model has been taking longer due to its age and the retirement of a national import specialist, they said, repeating what they shared in a previous update in November (see 2311030029) (Fanuc Robotics America v. U.S., CIT # 12-00052).

The Supreme Court on April 29 turned down the chance to review a lawsuit on whether defunct Lebanese bank Jammal Trust Bank is immune from being sued for supporting Hezbollah as an "instrumentality of a foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The question posed by the writ of certiorari was whether a defendant's status as an "instrumentality of a foreign state" kicks in at the time of the filing of the complaint against the company, as the high court held in Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, or at any time after the suit is filed, as found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Jammal Trust Bank claimed it became an instrumentality of Lebanon after it was sued when it "entered state-supervised liquidation" (Bartlett v. Baasiri, Sup. Ct. # 23-568).