Three importers said in combined remand comments that CBP was attempting to illegally shift the burden of proof onto them to prove they weren't guilty of evasion under the Enforce and Protect Act (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).

The U.S. filed another brief supporting its motion to dismiss a case involving the liquidation of entries that were the subject of a prior disclosure, which it argues the Court of International Trade has no jurisdiction to hear (Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., CIT # 23-00032).

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

The Court of International Trade said the Commerce Department must file remand results in a Section 232 exclusion request challenge from NLMK Pennsylvania on April 8 "unless the parties have executed a settlement agreement before that date" (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).

DOJ attorney Melissa Patterson withdrew from the massive Section 301 case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to a March 1 notice. Patterson, who has worked as an assistant director to the solicitor general since 2019, joined the case in November (see 2311200046) (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The International Trade Commission shouldn't have sought information about the circulation of phosphate fertilizer already in the market nor expected that circulation to prevent oversupply, two importers said in two March 1 briefs for the Court of International Trade (OCP S.A. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

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

The Court of International Trade on March 1 issued a scheduling order in the lawsuit challenging the Commerce Department's pause on antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian countries found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

Antidumping duty petitioners Bio-Lab, Innovative Water Care and Occidental Chemical Corp. took to the Court of International Trade on March 1 to contest the Commerce Department's surrogate country pick in the 2021-22 antidumping duty review on chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Bio-Lab v. United States, CIT # 24-00024).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. On remand, Commerce reversed its decision to apply subsidy rates to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and a Chinese tax program for the CVD rate for exporters Risen Energy Co. and JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co.