In a post-oral argument (see 2407250041) submission, all plaintiffs in a case regarding the scope of an antidumping duty order on steel wheels from China again pushed back against the government, saying that DOJ was misrepresenting communications during the order’s original investigation (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

An aluminum foil importer added its own motion for judgment to a stack of cases, primarily coming from the foil and solar panel industries, challenging the Commerce Department’s alleged overemphasis on only one or two factors out of the five used to analyze a product’s country of origin in evasion investigations (see 2407030064, 2406140059 and 2401230041) (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty scope case after denying a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (see 2407240048). The AD order's scope language includes standard pipe but excluded line pipe, and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s dual-stenciled pipes fit the industry specifications for both line and standard pipe. Two of the three judges deciding the case found that "meeting an additional specification" for line pipe "does not strip away the qualification of these pipes as standard pipes" (see 2405150027) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

A Chinese garlic exporter filed a complaint July 31 in the Court of International Trade claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly determined in an antidumping duty review that its U.S. sales were not bona fide and denied it a separate rate (Jining Huahui International Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00111).

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo rejecting the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes doesn't call for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to revisit a decision sustaining the sanctions designation of former Afghan government official Mir Rahman Rahmani and his son, Hafi Ajmal Rahmani, the U.S. said this week (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).

The Commerce Department switched the basis on which it found the Korean government's full allotment of emissions permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) was specific. Submitting its remand results under protest on July 31, Commerce said the full allotment of the permits was de facto specific after the Court of International Trade rejected the idea that the full allotment was de jure specific (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).

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

Multiple Indonesian glycine exporters argued July 29 that they have provided plenty of evidence they didn’t transship glycine from China. CBP and a petitioner, they said, are simply relying an a separate finding of affiliation and, otherwise, pure speculation (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week said that an entity can only violate the Plant Protection Act and Animal Health Protection Act for aiding, abetting, causing or inducing the illicit import of plant and animal products by knowingly taking part in the import process (Amazon Services v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, D.C. Cir. # 22-1052).