The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Court of International Trade activity
U.S. solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy asked the Court of International Trade for another 3,500 words to reply to arguments from the government and solar cell exporters and importers in the pair's suit on the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries. Auxin and Concept Clean Energy said opposing counsel either consented or took no position to the motion (Auxin Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00274).
In response to importer Mitsubishi Power Americas’ motion for judgment, the U.S. filed a cross-motion for judgment saying the importers’ products are filters and don’t fall under the “basket provision” for other catalytic reactors (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).
The Commerce Department appropriately found that details about U.S. seafood seller Luscious Seafood's wholesaling operations don't support the company's claim that it was a bona fide wholesaler of the domestic like product, the U.S. argued in a reply brief filed last week at the Court of International Trade. The government said that, as a result, Commerce permissibly found Luscious' request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam to be invalid (Luscious Seafood v. United States, CIT # 24-00069).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 18 upheld the Commerce Department's decision on remand to drop the countervailing duty on exporter Risen Energy Co. related to its alleged receipt of benefits under China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Judge Jane Restani said the move was in line with the court's prior decision.
The Commerce Department adjusted exporter Trina Solar’s U.S. price in an antidumping duty review for subsidies from three programs it had countervailed in an accompanying countervailing duty review, finding, after remand, that the programs were export-contingent. It again declined to adjust Trina’s U.S. price by three other programs (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 declined to grant victory to G&H Diversified Manufacturing on the importer's claims that CBP previously, as part of its role in granting a Section 232 duty exclusion, already said the company's imports were subject to the exclusion. Judge Timothy Reif said open questions of fact still exist with regard to the extent of CBP's role in the exclusion process.
Importer Performance Additives told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the notion that Congress created a "two-track framework" for deemed liquidation of drawback claims where some claims aren't subject to deemed liquidation at all and others aren't subject to any time limit on liquidation is "nonsense." Filing a reply brief last week, the company said this interpretation of the statutory framework is "blatantly contrary to Congress' stated intent" (Performance Additives v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2059).
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 19 found a factual dispute regarding the extent of CBP's role in the Section 232 exclusion request process for importer G&H Diversified Manufacturing, denying the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. G&H secured a Section 232 exclusion for goods entered under subheading 7304.29.6115 but then saw CBP liquidate its goods under subheading 7304.59.8020. Judge Timothy Reif said G&H couldn't prevail on its claim that CBP failed to consider it previously determined, on at least three separate occasions, that the company's goods are classified under subheading 7304.29.6115 as part of its role in the exclusion process.
The Court of International Trade in a pair of decisions sustained the Commerce Department's use of neutral facts available against respondent Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. in the 33rd review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China and the agency's use of adverse facts available against the respondent in the AD order's 34th review. Judge Stephen Vaden said Commerce reasonably found in the 34th review that Tainai was aware of its unaffiliated suppliers' past non-cooperation but failed to work to the best of its ability to secure their cooperation.