The Court of International Trade in a May 1 decision made public May 9 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against mandatory respondent Risen Energy Co., though it remanded the methodology used to come up with the AFA rate. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce failed to pick from facts available and "instead created facts by manipulating evidence on the record."
The Court of International Trade ruled May 9 that an importer would recoup 22.4% of Section 301 duties it paid on an entry of kids’ erasable e-writing tablets from China.
The Court of International Trade on May 9 said jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, for solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy's challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels. Judge Timothy Reif said that the case contests Commerce's liquidation instructions and failure to order the collection of duties and not the underlying final determination in the AD/CVD proceedings themselves. In addition, the court allowed nine solar cell exporters and importers to intervene in the case, given that they adequately demonstrated they would be adversely affected by the case. However, Reif said the companies failed to establish intervention as a matter of right and can intervene only due to CIT Rule 24(b), which allows for permissive intervention.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on May 6 granted importer van Gelder's motion to set aside the dismissal of its customs lawsuit, which occurred due to a calendaring mistake from the company's counsel. Judge M. Miler Baker reopened the case and reset the deadline to remove the case from the Customs Case Management Calendar to April 30, 2025 (van Gelder v. United States, CIT # 21-00160).
A status report on Chinese steel exporter Ninestar’s request to be taken off the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List (see 2404150051) is due on June 3, Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann said in a May 8 scheduling order. Briefing on the exporter’s motion for judgment will remain stayed until further court order (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).
Canadian Lumber Exporter Says It Isn’t Barred from Bringing Case to CIT During Separate NAFTA Appeal
A Canadian exporter of softwood lumber said in a May 2 reply brief that its appeal to a NAFTA panel shouldn’t foreclose it from seeking entirely different relief at the Court of International Trade (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public May 9 sustained parts and remanded parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's decisions regarding its "solar glass and air freight valuations and its "methodology for calculating" adverse facts available. The judge sustained exporter Trina Solar's separate rate status; valuation of electricity, ocean freight, backsheet and ethylene vinyl acetate for the plaintiffs, led by Jinko Solar Import and Export Co.; use of JA Solar Malaysia's financial statements to set surrogate financial ratios; deduction of Section 301 duties from U.S. price; and use of AFA against the plaintiffs.
In a May 9 ruling, Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly held that importer Kent Displays’ children’s e-writing tablets from China were finished electronic goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8543, as the government argued, not duty-free LCD screens under heading 9301, as the importer claimed. The holding mooted the dispute about whether Kent’s entry was exempt from Section 301 duties, as at the time the goods were imported, the tariff doesn't cover the relevant tariff subheading. Instead, the importer will owe a 2.6% duty (Kent Displays v. U.S., CIT # 20-00156).
The Court of International Trade on May 8 sent back the Commerce Department's treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and hedging revenues due to issues in how the agency addressed the elements contemporaneously in the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey.