The Court of International Trade in a Dec. 19 opinion denied two quartz surface product exporters' bid to partially dissolve an existing injunction on liquidation after finding the companies did not make a "sufficient showing" for the motion. Concurrently, Judge Mark Barnett denied antidumping petitioner Cambria's motion for an injunction on liquidation, which was filed following the consolidation of its action with the exporters' suit so the relevant entries would be covered if the judge granted the motion to dissolve. Barnett denied Cambria's motion related to the entries for which liquidation is currently enjoined since he denied the motion to dissolve the injunction. The judge also denied Cambria's motion in relation to the entries not currently enjoined because the motion was untimely filed.
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Solar panel exporters are hoping to extend the deadline to file a petition for reheraing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case on whether President Donald Trump legally revoked a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. Asking the court for 14 more days to file the petition, the exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, said "good cause" exists for the extension (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).
A domestic antidumping duty petitioner challenged intervention of more companies in another ongoing case over a 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Canadian softwood lumber products (Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00206).
The U.S. said in a Dec. 15 motion to dismiss that CBP has discretion in deciding how to pursue investigations on forced labor allegations, including how long those investigations may take, how much information CBP will reveal and whether action will be taken at all (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).
Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."
The Court of International Trade ruled Dec. 18 that the Commerce Department could use one antidumping mandatory respondent’s third-country sales to construct another’s profit, selling expenses and profit cap. In a case filed in May 2022 and voluntarily remanded to Commerce in June of this year, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves upheld Commerce’s use of SeAH Steel Corp.’s third-country sales in calculating a constructed export price for Hyundai Steel in a 2020 administrative review. She also upheld the agency's use of that export price in setting the AD duty for all non-individually examined respondents. The review had assigned a 19.54% AD duty for Hyundai, a 3.85% duty for SeAH and an 11.70% all-others rate.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer CHR. Hansen filed a notice of dismissal in its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 12. The company filed the case in December 2021 to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its probiotics powder of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2106.90.9897, dutiable at 6.4%, should be classified under subheading 3002.90.1000. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (CHR. Hansen v. United States, CIT # 21-00636).
Exporter Canadian Solar International Limited filed a Dec. 15 notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade in its case challenging the Commerce Department's anti-circumvention finding on solar panels from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. In the proceeding, Commerce found that solar panels from these nations are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00195).