Elisa Solomon, trial attorney at DOJ's International Trade Field Office, will transfer to become a trial attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission effective Sept. 25, according to a U.S. notice at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Her last day at DOJ was Sept. 23. Solomon began working at DOJ in 2022 as a trial attorney, coming to the agency from Covington & Burling, where she was an associate in the white collar investigations and commercial litigation practices. She also served as a law clerk with Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce Department legally held that modified engines with a gearbox and vertical power take-off shaft are covered by the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on vertical shaft engines between 99cc and 255cc from China, the U.S. said in a Sept. 19 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00011).
Actuators used in automotive applications that were produced in Mexico from Chinese, Mexican, U.S. and Taiwanese components are correctly Mexican origin and shouldn't have been assessed Section 301 tariffs, importer Suprajit said in a Sept. 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Suprajit Controls v. U.S., CIT # 23-00181).
The U.S. filed a customs penalty lawsuit on Sept. 22 at the Court of International Trade against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng, seeking a nearly $3.4 million penalty related to evaded antidumping and Section 301 duties on uncovered mattress innersprings from China. The complaint says the imports were transshipped from China through Thailand to avoid the duties (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).
The Court of International Trade improperly relied on an adverse inference in rejecting importer Meyer Corp.'s claim for first sale treatment related to the valuation of its cookware imports, Meyer told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Sept. 21 reply brief. Meyer claimed that the trade court's inference, which the importer said is the "centerpiece" of the U.S. defense, is based solely on "pure speculation" and shows that the court committed "clear error" (Meyer Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1570).
The Commerce Department erred on remand when it stuck by its benchmark picks for the land program and the aluminum plate, sheet and strip program in a lawsuit on the 2016-17 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China, Chinese aluminum exporter Zhongji said in its Sept. 18 remand comments to the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00133).
The Commerce Department mistakenly relied on the invoice dates rather than contract dates as dates of U.S. sales, resulting in a miscalculation of duties in the 2020-2021 antidumping duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey, Turkish rebar exporters Kaptan and Colakoglu said in a Sept. 18 brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief came in support of a motion for judgment, which asked the court to remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration of the date of sale for U.S. sales and recalculation of the antidumping rates (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 23-00059).
The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 20 opinion dismissed a customs penalty case involving surety company Lincoln General Insurance Co. The company filed a joint motion to dismiss with the U.S. in the case, as well as in 10 other similar matters, telling the court that the parties reached an understanding regarding "priority classification that enabled [CBP] to request that the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania approve the United States' claim" as "undisputed and resolved" (see 2309200038). Judge Jane Restani granted the motion to dismiss.
The Commerce Department lawfully selected surrogate values, calculated rates, applied adverse facts, and correctly decided to deny a separate rate to exporter Trina during the eighth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, the American Alliance for Solar Manufacturing said in its Sept. 18 brief at the Court of International Trade (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00219).