Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
Exporter Camel Group filed its motion for judgment against the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's decision not to remove the company from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, arguing that the decision wasn't backed by substantial evidence or supported by a reasoned explanation. Camel said FLETF used the wrong standard of review in assessing its petition for removal from the UFLPA Entity List, arguing that the task force should have used a "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of a "reasonable cause to believe" standard" (Camel Group v. United States, CIT # 25-00022).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 to compel defendant Zhe “John” Liu, a steel hanger importer facing multiple duty evasion cases (see 2207220042, 2407310047 and 2407310047), to update his answer in one of those cases “to substantively respond” to the government’s complaint (United States v. Zhe “John” Liu, CIT # 23-00116).
The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Sept. 29 for a voluntary remand in a case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China regarding the use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. The government said the Commerce Department's decision to use AFA on sales made by the respondent to U.S. customers who verified they didn't use the EBCP is inconsistent with the trade court's prior rulings on the program, which have bucked the use of AFA for U.S. buyers who have provided such verification (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).
Counsel for the Blackfeet Nation members challenging the imposition of tariffs on Native Americans asked the Supreme Court for leave to participate in the Nov. 5 oral argument session on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The members' attorney, Monica Tranel, asked for 15 minutes to argue her case during the hearing, saying her claim that the president can't impose tariffs on Native Americans isn't "addressed by the other parties" (Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, U.S. 25-250) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
The International Trade Commission disagreed Sept. 24 that it was basing its finding of critical circumstances for pea protein from China on the Commerce Department’s own independent critical circumstances determination (NURA USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).
The Commerce Department on Sept. 26 stuck with its valuation of solar glass, an input in solar cells, and altered its adverse facts available calculations in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade in a case on the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. The result left the AD rates for respondents Jinko Solar and Risen Energy unchanged, with Jinko receiving a 20.99% rate and Risen getting a 12.24% rate (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00219).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Countervailing duty petitioner Titan Tire dropped its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on pneumatic off-the-road tires from India, according to a stipulation of dismissal filed at the Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 (Titan Tire Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00207).