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

The U.S. on July 15 opposed importer Simplified's bid to have the Court of International Trade reconsider its stay of proceedings in its case against the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, arguing that Simplified's case will be resolved by the current appeal on the IEEPA tariffs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Emily Ley Paper, d/b/a Simplified v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00096).

Importers Waaree Energies and ISS Global Forwarding Texas on July 14 dropped their case at the Court of International Trade on CBP's collection of excess safeguard duties on solar cell imports. The case was stayed pending resolution of Solar Energy Industries Association v. U.S., which concerned President Donald Trump's revocation of the tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in SEIA that the tariff exclusion revocation was lawful (see 2311130031) (Waaree Energies v. United States, CIT #22-00296).

Exporters BYD (H.K.), Canadian Solar International and Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) will appeal a pair of May Court of International Trade decisions finding that various exporters circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells by sending their products through Thailand and Cambodia (see 2505160045). In both decisions, the trade court upheld Commerce's decision to put special emphasis on the amount of research and development investment the companies put into their Thai facilities to show that the companies' processes in the country were "minor or insignificant."

The Commerce Department was right to find that the material terms of exporter Toyo Kohan’s U.S. sales were finalized the earlier of each sale’s shipment date or invoice date, the government and petitioner Thomas Steel Strip Corp. each said July 11 (Toyo Kohan Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00261).

The Court of International Trade's recent decision in Worldwide Door Components v. U.S. regarding a scope decision on aluminum extrusions "has no bearing" on the court's consideration of a pair of scope cases regarding freight rail couplers, petitioner the Coalition of Freight Rail Couplers said. Responding to importer Wabtec's notice of supplemental authority regarding the Worldwide decision, the petitioner said the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions is "distinct" from the scope of the AD/CVD orders on freight couplers at issue in the present case (Wabtec Corp. v. United States, CIT #'s 23-00160, -00161).

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

Petitioner Nucor Steel filed a July 11 complaint challenging the Commerce Department’s 2022 countervailing duty reviews on certain corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. It said again that Commerce should have countervailed three debt-to-equity swaps received by mandatory respondent KG Dongbu Steel in 2015 and 2016, an issue that previously arose in the 2019 administrative review (see 2504110057) (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 25-00107).

Exporter Trina Solar Science & Technology will appeal a May Court of International Trade decision in which the court held that the Commerce Department properly found that exporters Canadian Solar and Trina Solar circumvented the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells by sending their products through Thailand (see 2505160045). The trade court sustained the agency's decision to place special emphasis on the amount of research and development investment put into the companies' Thai facilities to show that the companies' processes in the country were "minor or insignificant." Trina will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) v. United States, CIT # 23-00227).

The Commerce Department published July 9 its remand results of its 2018 countervailing duty review of Chinese-origin multilayered wood flooring, reversing its use of adverse facts available for exporter Senmao after deciding Senmao’s customers didn’t use China’s Export Buyers Credit Program (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).