The Commerce Department on June 10 changed the subsidy that it used to derive the adverse facts available countervailing duty rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a CVD review, following a rebuke from the Court of International Trade. In its remand results in a suit on the 2017 review on narrow woven ribbons from China, Commerce used the 0.87% subsidy rate for the Export Seller's Credit Program in a CVD proceeding on chrlorinated isocyanurates from China to set the CVD rate for the EBCP (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00059).

Another importer alleged June 7 that the Commerce Department improperly relied on competitors’ unsupported claim that they, as domestic producers, could provide enough of an input -- aluminum rod, this time -- to cover the importer’s needs. As a result, the importer had been forced to pay “tens of millions” of dollars in Section 232 tariffs, it said (Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

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

In the challenge to the law that would shut down TikTok in the U.S. or force parent ByteDance to sell the social media giant, TikTok and ByteDance submitted a statement of issues June 6 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).

Exporters Jinko Solar Holding Co. and Boviet Solar Technology Co., along with various of their subsidiaries and affiliated importers, moved to intervene in a case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on Southeast Asian solar panels (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

A defendant-intervenor in an exporter’s case challenging the results of a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada on June 6 opposed a motion to stay proceedings while a similar case winds its way through the appeals process. It argued that while the case on appeal deals (again) (see 2107150032) with the proper use of the “Cohen’s d test,” (see 2401110037) the case is not applicable in its own litigation (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).

The Commerce Department on June 7 lowered the dumping margin for nine separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, from 42.57% to 31.63%, after revising aspects of its dumping analysis (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 19-00144).

A domestic producer of glycine brought a motion for judgment against the U.S. on June 6 regarding a negative scope ruling that calcium glycinate was too far removed a precursor of glycine to be covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

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

Importer MTD Products filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade June 5 claiming its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China were improperly denied Section 301 exclusions by CBP (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00174).