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).

Importer Smith-Cooper International on July 10 dismissed its case challenging an antidumping duty scope ruling it initially filed in 2019. The Commerce Department's scope ruling had found that the company's Cooplet weld outlets are subject to AD on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to request for comment on the case (Smith-Cooper International v. United States, CIT # 19-00011).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in a July 10 text-only order, told parties in a case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to file a joint status report that lays out the parties' proposed schedule to govern future proceedings at the district court. The case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2507030052). At the district court, Judge Rudolph Contereras held that the Court of International Trade doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction in the case, since IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs (see 2505290037) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).

Exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. and importer Craft33 Products said in two July 7 motions for judgment that the Commerce Department had again wrongly applied adverse facts available claiming potential use of China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).

The Commerce Department released July 9 its remand results of a scope ruling on calcium glycinate from India, Japan and Thailand. It said it now finds that calcium glycinate is covered by antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on glycine “regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer” (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

The Court of International Trade's recent "dictum" on whether the Tariff Act of 1930 lets the Commerce Department impose antidumping duties and countervailing duties on an upstream product that's incorporated into a downstream product imported into the U.S. isn't relevant for adjudication of a pair of separate AD/CVD scope cases, the U.S. said (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).