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

Antidumping petitioner American Line Pipe Producers Association Trade Committee on July 8 dropped its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Greece. The petitioner brought its suit to claim that the Commerce Department accidentally included offsets for scrap not produced during the investigation period in its calculation of an exporter's normal value (see 2402200076). Counsel for the petitioner didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (American Line Pipe Producers Association Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT # 24-00012).

The U.S. and exporters led by Risen Energy Co. agreed July 8 to dismiss a case on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1524). The government appealed the Court of International Trade decision siding with Risen on the agency's land benchmark calculation and use of adverse facts available pertaining to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2312200026) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03912).

Glock opposed July 3 a U.S. motion for judgment in the gunmaker’s favor (see 2406280025), calling it “a blatant attempt by the Government to evade this Court’s ruling on the merits of Glock’s claim” (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

The International Trade Commission told the Court of International Trade on July 3 that it fully responded to the court's instructions when it reconsidered the data it relied on when measuring in-scope imports from Germany and Mexico, despite claims to the contrary from Russian pipe exporter PAO TMK (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT # 21-00532).

A solar panel exporter again argued that the Commerce Department had instituted a double remedy by adjusting Trina Solar’s U.S. prices for the countervailing duties it paid for only five subsidy programs, and not the other six, in its review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar panels from China (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).

The Commerce Department was right to consider the assembly of hardwood plywood in Vietnam “minor and insignificant” when it reached an affirmative circumvention ruling for 20 Vietnamese exporters, the U.S. said July 2 in response to importers’ and exporters’ multiple motions for judgment (see 2404020054) and 2402020054) (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The U.S. on July 1 claimed that the provision of customs law establishing deemed liquidation except where the determinations of admissibility are vested in an agency other than CBP "broadly applies" to all agencies that can make admissibility determinations and not just those capable of carrying them out (Inspired Ventures v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

A Cambodian solar cell exporter became the latest (see 2407010059 and 2406140059) to claim in a motion for judgment that Commerce wrongly elevated the importance of an exporter’s regional research and development in a circumvention investigation (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).

Antidumping duty petitioner Ventura Coastal invoked the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo -- which overturned the principle of Chevron deference -- to claim that the Court of International Trade doesn't need to adhere to the Commerce Department's interpretation of the statute "defining affiliation between parties" (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).