Russian exporter JSC Apatit took to the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's 2020-21 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on phosphate fertilizers from Russia, in which it received a 28.5% CVD rate (Joint Stock Company Apatit v. U.S., CIT # 23-00254).
A less stringent "reasonable cause" standard for adding companies to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List is justified on statutory and policy grounds, the U.S. told the Court of International Trade in a brief opposing Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction. Using a higher standard, such as a preponderance of the evidence standard, for making listing decisions, would undermine the UFLPA's goal of placing a burden on exporters to show that their goods are not made with forced labor (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. said it hasn't made a decision on whether to proceed with an appeal of a case brought by exporter Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group on the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, it said in a third extension request for the filing of its opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said its notice of appeal was "protective," and it needs more time to "complete and finalize" the process for determining whether to "authorize" the appeal (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).
DOJ and steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania are awaiting word from the U.S. "settlement authority" regarding NLMK's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion case after the parties agreed to a settlement in principle, they said Jan. 2. The Court of International Trade gave the government and NLMK another stay in the case, granting them 30 additional days to file another status report (NLMK Pennsylvania v. United States, CIT # 21-00507).
U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy launched a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 29 to contest the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules from Southeast Asian found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these products from China (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Commerce’s countervailing duty for a Moroccan phosphate fertilizer exporter was too low because it either ignored or underestimated several benefits, a domestic petitioner said Dec 28 in the Court of International Trade (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00246).
Indian exporter Kumar Industries took to the Court of International Trade to contest the adverse facts available rate it received for purportedly failing to cooperate to the best of its ability in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from India. Filing a complaint on Jan. 1, Kumar said Commerce erred in using AFA due to the noncooperation of two entities which the agency said were related to Kumar (Kumar Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00263).
The South Korean government's provision of port usage rights to exporter Hyundai Steel Co. is not a countervailable benefit since it is the repayment of a debt, Hyundai told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 29 opening brief. Because the port usage rights allowed Hyundai to "recoup its costs" from building the Incheon North Harbor port, the rights did not provide a "gift-like transfer of funds that provided an advantage or profit to Hyundai Steel," the brief said (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1100).