Plaintiffs in a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw a tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels reserved all their rights to the extent that the plaintiffs are affected by the U.S.'s inadvertent liquidations of the entries at issue in the action, the plaintiffs said in a Sept. 13 reply brief. The reserved rights include, but are not limited to, "opposing the Government’s actions and legal authority to void liquidations without court approval and without providing specificity that would allow for meaningful comment, the brief said (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, CIT #20-03941).
The Commerce Department legally dropped its reliance on adverse facts available for whether countervailing duty respondent Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co. benefitted from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade held in a Sept. 13 opinion. Judge Claire Kelly previously sent back Commerce's use of adverse facts available over the Chinese government's unwillingness to submit certain information about its EBCP. The judge said that if the agency wanted to keep using AFA it had to attempt to verify the non-use of the program by looking at evidence from Both-Well and its U.S. customers. Commerce did so on remand, finding that the respondent did not benefit from the EBCP, dropping the company's CVD rate from 25.90% to 15.36%.
The Commerce Department has the authority to address a particular market situation in an antidumping case when normal value is based on home market sales, AD petitioner Wheatland Tube argued in its Sept. 12 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit should overturn the Court of International Trade's ruling, which found that Commerce acted illegally in relying on constructed value when it found that a PMS distorted the cost of production of the home market sales (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1175).
CBP must refund the interest accrued on duty overpayments, phone case importer Otter Products argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Having had the duty overpayments themselves refunded following prior court action at CIT and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Otter took to the court again to request the interest. The plaintiff argued that since the full payments were never made voluntarily, it is entitled to a refund of the interest accrued on the payments made in connection with prior disclosures, and that the statute unambiguously mandates the maximum penalty for prior disclosures involving negligent conduct (Otter Products v. United States, CIT #22-00033).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
CBP unlawfully began an Enforce and Protect Act investigation into CEK Group since the allegation submitted by M&B Metal Products didn't support the start of the investigation, CEK Group argued in a Sept. 12 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. To start an EAPA action, there must be an allegation with specific information -- something CBP did not receive from M&B, the brief said. The plaintiff said the Royal Brush v. U.S. case at the trade court "has now constrained CBP" in EAPA cases from making decisions based on confidential information not made available to the parties via public summaries -- something CBP allegedly did in CEK Group's case (CEK Group v. U.S., CIT #22-00082).
CBP unlawfully changed exporter J.D. Irving's antidumping duty cash deposit rate on its 2020 entries months after the rate had been confirmed when no administrative review had been requested of the exporter, J.D. Irving argued in a Sept. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Because the change came after assessment instructions had been issued for the 2020 review period, it improperly set a cash deposit that was not based on same dumping margin as its most recent assessment rate, the exporter said (J.D. Irving v. U.S., CIT #22-00256).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should reject a motion from defendant Zhe "John" Liu to strike various paragraphs of the U.S.'s complaint in a Section 592 penalty case, the U.S. argued in a Sept. 8 reply brief. DOJ argued that Liu cannot show that his knowledge and experience -- the content of the paragraphs contested by Liu -- are not material to the issues in the case and thus should not be struck (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT #22-00215).
The Commerce Department disregarded the potential for countervailing duty respondent CS Wind Vietnam to manipulate its CVD margin through its relationship with its Korean parent company, plaintiff Wind Tower Trade Coalition (WTTC) said in Sept. 7 comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting its arguments to the Court of International Trade, WTTC said Commerce's use of CS Wind Korea's reported sales value in the sales denominator was inconsistent with the agency's regulations and past practice (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. U.S., CIT #20-03692).