Solar cell exporters JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. and JingAo Solar Co. objected to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's order saying that it will reform the caption to designate the companies as appellees. JA Solar instead asked to remain a plaintiff since it supports appellant Risen Energy even though it did not itself file a notice of appeal. "Second, JA Solar will not be filing or joining any brief in this proceeding, nor does it intend to participate in oral argument," the brief said. The suit is challenging the Commerce Department's surrogate values for silver paste and use partial neutral facts available in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China (see 2301050026) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).
The Court of International Trade's recent decision on the customs classification of frozen fruit mixtures supports the government's arguments in a customs spat on importer Second Nature Design's imports of dried botanical items used in home decor, the U.S. said in a notice of supplemental authority. Acknowledging that the trade court's recent opinion in Nature's Touch Frozen Foods v. U.S. is not final, the government nevertheless said that Judge Stephen Vaden's opinion backs its case (Second Nature Designs v. United States, CIT # 17-00271).
The Commerce Department correctly determined that Korean exporter SeAH Steel failed to cooperate fully in a countervailing duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Korea because SeAH waited until verification to provide information that should have been submitted in response to an initial questionnaire, a group of defendant-intervenors led by Borusan Mannesmann Pipe said in their May 30 response brief. Because SeAH failed to act to the best of its ability, Commerce's application of adverse facts available was warranted, Borusan said (SeAH Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00338).
Antidumping petitioner Nucor Tubular Products' motion to dismiss a suit on an AD review of steel pipes and tubes from South Korea fails to consider all of exporter HiSteel's claims, the exporter argued in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. While Nucor claims a Commerce Department reversal of its adjustments to HiSteel's costs and scrap offset as a result of the transactions disregarded rule will not change the company's margin, HiSteel said the true effect on its margin is unknown given its remaining claim against Commerce's differential pricing analysis (DPA) (HiSteel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00142).
The Court of International Trade granted exporter Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co.'s motion to sever its case from a suit filed by Nippon Steel challenging the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Japan, and dismiss its case. Judge Stephen Vaden also granted Tokyo Steel's request to dissolve the injunction suspending liquidation of the company's hot-rolled steel products. The exporter initially filed the case to contest the Commerce Department's deduction of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties from respondent Nippon Steel's U.S. price (Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00180).
The Court of International Trade approved exporter Octal's bid to voluntarily dismiss its suit against the Commerce Department's 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate resin from Oman. Octal launched the suit challenging Commerce's changes to the date of sale for Octal's U.S. sales. The exporter argued the agency should have used the date when the relevant price index was published rather than the invoice date, and the change resulted in an erroneous 3.96% dumping margin for the exporter (Octal Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00352).
CBP misclassified low noise blocks and switches over a series of entries between 2016 and 2018 as "transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting," rather than as duty-free "telephone sets,' Global Invacom said in a May 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Global Invacom Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00261).
The Commerce Department correctly reconsidered Nucor’s ministerial error allegations in recalculating antidumping duty rates for Prolamsa and Maquilacero in its remand results on the 2018-19 administrative review on heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, Nucor said in May 26 response comments to the remand redetermination at the Court of International Trade (Nucor Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 21-00543).
The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's fifth remand redetermination on the antidumping duty investigation on certain hardwood plywood products from China, said the government, a group of consolidated plaintiffs, and a defendant-intervenor, in a series of response briefs at the Court of International Trade (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Ltd., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 18-00002).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ordered parties in a False Claims Act case to file supplemental briefs on whether 19 U.S.C. 1592 has the exclusive means for recovering antidumping duties an importer illegally avoided paying via false statements, or whether the False Claims Act can also be used to recover the duties. Referred to as Section 592, the statute is the part of the Tariff Act of 1930 covering customs penalties for fraud, gross negligence and negligence. The court told the parties, including appellant Sigma Corp. and the U.S., to file the brief by June 26 (Island Industries Inc. v. Sigma Corp., 9th Cir. # 22-55063).