Exporter Oman Fasteners said a recent Court of International Trade decision on the Commerce Department's filing deadlines supports its claim at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that one "inadvertent missed deadline 'without more'" doesn't support the use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty case. Oman Fasteners filed a notice of supplemental authority on June 10 calling the appellate court's attention to CIT's holding in Cambria Co. v. U.S. (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

After a remand order forced the Commerce Department to use Brazilian rather than Mexican labor cost data in calculating two Chinese exporters’ value, those exporters pushed back on the decision and the subsequent increase they saw in their own antidumping duties (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).

A tire importer opposed a motion to dismiss its case for lack of jurisdiction June 7, arguing that the Court of International Trade could preside because CBP had made a relevant protestable decision -- the decision to delay an admissibility determination (Inspired Ventures, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision granted the government's motion to dismiss a case from importer Greentech Energy Solutions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until June 17 to review the confidential decision so the court can publish the opinion. Greentech brought the suit under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, to contest the antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cell entries from Vietnam, claiming that the lack of dumping, subsidization or injury finding on Vietnamese solar cells made the duties illegal (see 2306130025). The U.S. said the court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP first to contest the duties (see 2312260052) (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).

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

Honeywell International on June 7 moved to unseal various pleadings in its customs case on the classification of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies. The importer moved to unseal its motion for summary judgment and five of seven exhibits accompanying the motion. Honeywell said the government consented to the motion (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).

Several Russian phosphate exporters filed the opening brief in their appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 7. They argued that the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding the Russian government’s provision of natural gas to them was incorrect, as their industry consumed only 4.7% of the total quantity of gas provided (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).

The Commerce Department on June 10 changed the subsidy that it used to derive the adverse facts available countervailing duty rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a CVD review, following a rebuke from the Court of International Trade. In its remand results in a suit on the 2017 review on narrow woven ribbons from China, Commerce used the 0.87% subsidy rate for the Export Seller's Credit Program in a CVD proceeding on chrlorinated isocyanurates from China to set the CVD rate for the EBCP (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00059).

Another importer alleged June 7 that the Commerce Department improperly relied on competitors’ unsupported claim that they, as domestic producers, could provide enough of an input -- aluminum rod, this time -- to cover the importer’s needs. As a result, the importer had been forced to pay “tens of millions” of dollars in Section 232 tariffs, it said (Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

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