The International Trade Commission shouldn't have sought information about the circulation of phosphate fertilizer already in the market nor expected that circulation to prevent oversupply, two importers said in two March 1 briefs for the Court of International Trade (OCP S.A. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

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

The Court of International Trade on March 1 issued a scheduling order in the lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's pause on antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

Antidumping duty petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corp. took to the Court of International Trade on March 1 to contest the Commerce Department's surrogate country pick in the 2021-22 antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 24-00024).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. On remand, Commerce reversed its decision to apply subsidy rates to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and a Chinese tax program for the CVD rate for exporters Risen Energy Co. and JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co.

The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on superabsorbent polymers from South Korea in a March 1 confidential opinion. Petitioner Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers' motion for judgment had argued against Commerce's use of alternative characteristics of superabsorbent polymers supplied by respondent LG Chem to set control numbers (see 2307170007). The petitioner said the use of LG Chem's alternative characteristics is contrary to the agency's established practice (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00010).

Nestle USA last week filed a motion opposing class certification in a lawsuit alleging that it "deceptively labels its chocolate as a sustainable, fair trade product" when its cocoa beans are allegedly farmed using child and trafficked labor in West Africa (Renee Walker v. Nestle USA, S.D. Cal. # 19-00723).

Just as the Court of International Trade ruled, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can hear a Chinese diamond sawblade exporter’s case on a new issue arising from a separate rate determination even though CAFC has already decided a previous case regarding that same determination, an importer said Feb. 28 (China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

Even if adverse facts available were warranted for the calculation of an exporter’s rate, that rate should be set only to deter non-cooperation, not to destroy a company entirely, the exporter said Feb. 28 at the Court of International Trade (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).

The U.S. and importer Siffron filed a pair of briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit defending the Commerce Department's finding that Siffron's shelf dividers are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on flexible magnets from China (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).