The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade granted exporter Hyosung Heavy Industries Corp.'s request to dismiss its case against the Commerce Department's final results of the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from South Korea. The exporter filed the suit on April 17, then moved to toss it under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which says the case can be voluntarily dismissed before the opposing party serves an answer. No reason was provided as to why Hyosung wanted to dismiss the case (Hyosung Heavy Industries Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00082).
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a fraud case regarding solar module imports, but left the plaintiff, Hounen Solar, room to amend the complaint (Hounen Solar v. UL, N.D. Ill. # 22-CV-3240).
Reconsideration of a Court of International Trade opinion on the origin of uninterruptable power supplies would amount to simple "do-over" and should be denied, DOJ said in an April 20 motion. Cyber Power failed to prove that a substantial transformation occurred for four models of its power supplies and one model of its surge voltage protector at trial, DOJ said, and reconsideration would only provide Cyber Power a chance to relitigate the case (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. U.S., CIT # 20-00124).
The Court of International Trade upheld parts and sent back parts of a countervailing duty case brought by Dalian Meisen Woodworking in a confidential opinion. In a letter to litigants, Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until April 27 to inform the court what should remain confidential. The trade court previously remanded the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, telling the agency it must "find a practical solution" to verify information from respondents' U.S. customers showing that they did not use the EBCP (see 2205230033) (Dalian Meisen Woodworking v. U.S., Slip Op. 23-57, CIT # 20-00110).
CIT Again Upholds Commerce's Decision to Find Korea's Provision of Electricity Didn't Confer Benefit
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government doesn't subsidize the steel industry via the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, issuing a nearly identical opinion in a second case brought by countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. (see 2304190017), said the agency permissibly analyzed whether the electricity prices paid by all companies, including the two CVD respondents, were consistent with market principles and supported its decision with substantial evidence.
The Court of International Trade on April 19 remanded the results of an antidumping duty review on xanthan gum from China back to the Commerce Department. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ordered Commerce to reconsider its use of adverse facts available when it calculated a separate rate for Chinese producer Meihua, its use of a simple average in separate rate calculations., and whether Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. should be combined into a single entity.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity was for less than adequate remuneration but did not confer a benefit in a countervailing duty review. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves ruled the agency permissibly analyzed whether the electricity prices paid by all companies, including the two CVD respondents, were consistent with market principles and supported its decision with substantial evidence.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a U.S. motion for 4,000 more words to file in its reply brief in an appeal of the Commerce Department's finding that Vandewater International's steel branch outlets are within the scope of an antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings. The government said it needs 18,000 words to address the "volume of information and arguments in the two opening briefs" (see 2304120044). The other parties in the appeal consented to the request (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).