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

The 1930 Tariff Act doesn't demand the Commerce Department conduct individual reviews for exporters in sunset reviews, the government said Feb. 26 in a filing with the Court of International Trade (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).

The Commerce Department may include the same government subsidy in calculations for both antidumping and countervailing duty rates because the court has held those are two completely different things, DOJ said in a brief replying to a German exporter's comments on a remand redetermination (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).

The Solar Energy Industries Association asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 23 for leave to file a "short reply in support of their pending petition for rehearing en banc" in a suit on President Donald Trump's revocation of a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

The U.S. in a Feb. 27 motion defended its decision to calculate energy costs for a review's mandatory respondent directly, rather than as part of the respondent's selling, general and administrative costs, saying that the calculation was made more accurate because the Commerce Department had been given better information from a surrogate than it had ever received before (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).

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

The Commerce Department has been illegally expanding the reach of an antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China over years of scope rulings for different parties, a textile company argued in a Feb. 26 motion for judgment filed with the Court of International Trade (Printing Textiles d/b/a/ Berger Textiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).

Turkish exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's decision on the date of sale of Kaptan's goods in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

CBP imposed interim restrictions on an importer without informing it of an ongoing Enforce and Protect Act investigation, then put partly confidential information on the record without notice so that the importer couldn’t rebut it, that importer said in a Feb. 26 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Superior Commercial Solutions LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00052).

Indian exporter Kumar Industries withdrew its appeal of an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 23. The company said that it "has elected not to further pursue its appeal," noting that the U.S. consented to the withdrawal (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).