Jacob Kopnick

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Importer Coulisse Distribution voluntarily dismissed its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on its DC (direct current) electric motors, filing a notice of dismissal Nov. 14. Coulisse filed the suit seeking an exclusion from Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule secondary subheading 9903.88.67. The motors were classified under subheading 8501.10.4060, dutiable at 4.4%, and secondary subheading 9903.88.01. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to our request for comment (Coulisse Distribution v. U.S., CIT # 23-00245).

Solar exporters and importers, led by the American Clean Power Association, said a suit challenging the Commerce Department's duty pause on solar cells and modules from four Southeast Asian countries is "moot" due to a failure to identify an injury that would be redressable through the retroactive imposition of AD/CVD (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

Hendricks Valenzuela, a U.S. trade attorney, has been promoted to senior attorney in the Commerce Department's Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, he said on LinkedIn. Valenzuela joined the agency in 2020 as an attorney.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 19 adopted amendments to its practice rules and notes and attorney discipline rules, the court announced. The changes will take effect Dec. 1 and will apply to "all cases filed order pending on or after" Dec. 1, unless otherwise ordered, the court said.

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over importer Retractable Technologies' suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes, given that the court has already acknowledged its ability to hear cases on agency action taken under presidential direction, Retractable said. Responding to the government's motion to dismiss the case Nov. 19, Retractable pointed to the trade court's recent decision in the case granting a preliminary injunction (PI) on the liquidation of the importer's entries subject to the duties (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology filed an amended complaint in its suit against its designation as a Chinese military company after the Pentagon relisted the company (see 2410230018), arguing that the decision is "just as unsubstantiated and weak as the original one that they recently refused to defend" (Hesai Technology Co. v. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-01381).

The Commerce Department "clearly considered" antidumping scope language highlighted by exporter Export Packers Co. in its challenge to the agency's inclusion of the company's garlic in the AD order on fresh garlic from China, petitioner Fresh Garlic Producers Association argued. Replying to Export Packers' motion for judgment on Nov. 19 at the Court of International Trade, the petitioner said the scope of the order explicitly covers the garlic at issue, which is separated into individual cloves and frozen (Export Packers Company Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 24-00061).

Various companies that were originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber asked the Court of International Trade to clarify that they're due refunds of CVD cash deposits (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).