The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Several Russian phosphate exporters filed the opening brief in their appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 7. They argued that the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding the Russian government’s provision of natural gas to them was incorrect, as their industry consumed only 4.7% of the total quantity of gas provided (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).
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).
Customs broker Seko Logistics asked the Court of International Trade on June 7 for expedited briefing in its suit against CBP's suspension of the company from Type 86 filing and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Seko said greater delay in the case "deprives the requested relief of much of its value" and sets "extraordinary hardship" on the broker (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).
The Court of International Trade on June 10 signaled that CBP's practice of not notifying companies when they become subject to interim Enforce and Protect Act investigations could give rise to a due process claim should the company sufficiently allege that it suffered "specific enough harm." However, the court found that importer Phoenix Metal failed to allege that harm with enough specificity.
The Court of International Trade on June 11 sustained the Commerce Department's use of a cost-based particular market situation in an AD case on Indonesian biodiesel regarding Indonesian crude palm oil, the main input in biodiesel, due to an Indonesian export levy on crude palm oil. Judge Richard Eaton previously remanded the issue for Commerce to explain how the PMS doesn't amount to a "double remedy" given the companion countervailing duties on the export levy. The judge sustained the agency's explanation that since neither normal value nor U.S. price was affected by the levy, no double remedy exists.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
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).
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).