The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case. The mandate comes after the court sustained the Commerce Department's non-market economic policy in AD proceedings despite the fact that the agency hadn't codified the policy in its regulations at the time the underlying review was challenged (see 2507280046). The court said its long line of cases upholding the policy confirms its validity, adding that, even if those cases didn't exist, the NME policy is an evidentiary presumption, which doesn't require notice-and-comment rulemaking (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

The U.S. and domestic producer Deer Park Glycine jointly agreed Sept. 17 to dismiss the producer’s 2024 case against a scope ruling request denial (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).

The U.S. said on Sept. 17 it doesn't oppose Chinese exporter Ninestar's motion to amend its complaint in its case against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, though the government said it "reserves its right to move to dismiss one or both additional counts" in the amended complaint (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Chlorinated isocyanurates (isos) isn’t an “unusual or unique” product that would require a change to the Commerce Department’s surrogate selection procedure, the government said in its Sept. 15 response to domestic producer Bio-Lab’s motion for judgment (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 25-00054).

No lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

The Supreme Court will consider various Blackfeet Nation members' motion to intervene in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act at its Oct. 10 conference (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

The Supreme Court said that any motions relating to the oral argument in the lead cases on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act shall be filed on or before Oct. 3. The high court previously granted an expedited briefing schedule in the case, declaring that argument will be heard the first week of November (see 2509090058). Thus far, only one motion related to the argument has been filed, and it came from litigants in a separate case on IEEPA tariffs currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, seeking to intervene in the Supreme Court cases (see 2509100058) (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).

Respondents, led by the Coalition for Fair Mexican Exports of Aluminum Extrusions, defended the International Trade Commission's negative injury finding regarding aluminum extrusions from 14 countries, in a Sept. 16 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The coalition argued that the ITC properly supported its findings that the subject imports didn't have "significant price effects" nor did they have a "significant adverse impact on the domestic industry" (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00209).

Various solar cell importers and exporters, led by the American Clean Power Association, will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision invalidating President Joe Biden's duty pause on solar cells from four Southeast Asian countries. The importers and exporters will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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