A group of Ukrainian nationals on Dec. 10 accused Intel, Texas Instruments, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Mouser Electronics of not doing enough to ensure the semiconductor parts they make don't end up in Russian or Iranian hands (Shumylo v. Texas Instruments, Tex. # 25-09714).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 8 issued its mandate in an appeal concerning the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding that a surge of imports of Vietnamese raw honey from after the date the antidumping duty petition was filed was likely to undermine the remedial purpose of the AD order on the honey. In October, the court said the ITC doesn't have to identify whether a surge of imports subject to AD duties has an adverse impact on the time period after which the final AD order is issued to make a critical circumstances finding (see 2510150032) (Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1371, -1370).

Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology filed its opening brief in its appeal of its case contesting its designation as a "Chinese military company," arguing that the Pentagon adopted an "absurdly broad reading of" the law, Section 1260H, and that the lower court "adopted a capacious view of the [Defense] Department's listing authority and a cramped view of Hesai's obvious prejudice" (Hesai Technology v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, D.C. Cir. # 25-5256).

In a motion for judgment filed Dec. 9, ferrosilicon exporter TNC Kazchrome JSC said the Commerce Department had been wrong to apply adverse facts available to it, resulting in a 265.52% countervailing duty rate, for information it provided early in the CVD investigation (TNC Kazchrome JSC v. United States, CIT # 25-00128).

Importer Viecura’s argument that there were facts in its classification case that were in dispute, necessitating a trial, “amount[ed] to vague, unsubstantiated claims,” the U.S. said in a reply brief Dec. 5 (Viecura v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00154).

In a Dec. 3 reply supporting its motion for judgment, Nura said that the ITC “did not undertake the analysis that defendants claim is correct” to reach its affirmative critical circumstances finding (Nura USA v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00182).

A U.S. epoxy resin trade group said Dec. 3 that the Commerce Department was right to find that South Korea’s provision of low-cost off-peak electricity was specific to the country’s chemical industry (Kumho P&B Chemicals v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00143).

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

Importer Sigma Corp. dropped its antidumping duty scope case at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 4, filing a stipulation of dismissal. Sigma initially filed the case in 2019 to contest the Commerce Department's scope ruling on the company's Safelet and Unilet brand fire-protection weld outlets under the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 1901080013). The decision to drop the case comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a jury's determination that Sigma is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its goods were subject to AD (see 2506240037) and a separate scope proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subjecting the goods to AD (Sigma v. United States, CIT # 19-00003).