The Court of International Trade on Jan. 21 sustained in part and remanded in part the Commerce Department's remand results in the expedited countervailing duty review on softwood lumber products from Canada, in a confidential decision. Judge Mark Barnett sent the review back for Commerce to "reconsider or further explain its subsidy calculations with respect to" the consolidated entity of D&G/Portbec. The court found for the government on the remaining issues (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).

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

The United States and plywood importer Richmond International Forest Products settled their 2021 case in the Court of International Trade Jan. 16. The parties agreed in a motion for stipulated judgment that the exporter’s entries of Chinese-origin plywood were subject to antidumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties. Its Cambodia-origin plywood, however, was not subject to any of the three (Richmond International Forest Products v. United States, CIT #s 21-00063, -00318, -00319).

A group of importers, led by Tenaris Bay City Inc., will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's finding that it had sufficient U.S. industry support to launch the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia. After previously remanding the issue, the trade court said the agency adequately addressed contrary evidence (see 2412110010). On remand, Commerce said it appropriately used industry source data and that finishing operations weren't double counted (Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00343).

Vehicle side bar importer Keystone Automotive Operations’ classification dispute shouldn’t be granted reconsideration after a Court of International Trade ruling went against it (see 2410070030), the U.S. said Jan. 15 (Keystone Automotive Operations v. United States, CIT # 21-00215).

Importer AM Stone & Cabinets filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade, arguing that its products were unlawfully found to have been made in China based on adverse facts available, despite the company's full cooperation and a lack of evidence showing that its products were made in China (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT #s 24-00241, -00243).

Plaintiff-intervenor Florida Power and Light supported Vietnamese solar cell exporter Trina Solar before the Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 (see 2407150058). The two parties are arguing that the Commerce Department wrongly reached a circumvention finding regarding all of Vietnam’s solar cell exporters using only the records of a mandatory respondent (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00228).

Leaning on Loper Bright, Chinese solar cell exporter Yingli Energy pushed back against the Commerce Department’s usual presumption that exporters in nonmarket economies are under governmental control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).

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

The International Trade Commission "largely ignored" data trends in finding there to be significant price effects and an adverse impact caused by shipments of aluminum lithographic printing plates from China and Japan, exporter Fujifilm Corp. argued in a Jan. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The company also challenged the commission's decision to include its affiliate, Fujifilm-Greenwood, in the domestic industry and finding of significant adverse volume effects (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00251).