Importer InterGlobal Forest alleged at least eight errors in the Court of International Trade's July ruling upholding a Commerce Department finding that three plywood importers evaded antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on plywood from China (see 2507100044), and it asked for an adverse inference against the government for “suppressing evidence in flagrant violation” of an earlier remand order (American Pacific Plywood v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03914).

Domestic petitioner Mosaic Company pushed back against the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand -- made under protest -- that a Moroccan government program wasn’t specific to fertilizer exporter OCP (see 2507010039), saying the department’s original, contrary finding was reasonable and supported by record evidence (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00246).

The government will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision finding that its claim for unpaid duties against a surety company on an entry liquidated in 2009 violates both the statute of limitations for seeking payment and an implied requirement in the bond that demand for payment be made in a reasonable time (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

Importer Lanxess Corp. on Aug. 5 told the Court of International Trade that its organometallic product, made from methylaluminoxane (MAO) and trimethylaluminum in a toluene solvent, is properly classified as a "supported catalyst" and not as a solution under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3208. The company said its customers exclusively use the product as a supported catalyst and those in the industry only refer to the product as such (Lanxess Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00073).

The International Trade Commission last week stuck by its determination that the U.S. industry is materially injured by phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia, issuing a remand predetermination at the Court of International Trade. Commissioner David Johanson dissented from the decision, incorporating his dissenting views he issued with the commission's initial injury finding and first remand decision (OCP S.A. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00219).

Cable importer Cyber Power Systems disagreed Aug. 1 that its products are general “power cables” rather than “telecommunications cables,” saying in response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment that its preferred classification is presumptively correct. The importer also raised a separation of powers argument (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).

The U.S. again said July 30 that “rough” butt-weld pipe fittings were distinct from “unfinished” ones, supporting a Commerce Department redetermination on remand (see 2505050031) (Tube Forgings of America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

A group of exporters, led by Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum, filed a stipulation of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 in their case against the Commerce Department's administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China for the 2022 review period. The companies brought the case to contest Commerce's use of UNComtrade data as the benchmark for assessing the adequacy of remuneration for the provision of aluminum ingot. The exporters also challenged the use of adverse facts available in relation to the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program. Counsel for the companies didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum v. United States, CIT # 24-00231).

Solar cell importers Trina Solar and Astronergy dismissed three cases at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 6 challenging President Donald Trump's decision from his first administration to revoke a Section 201 tariff exclusion for bifacial solar panels. In a separate case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained Trump's decision, finding that the president didn't clearly misconstrue the statute when he revoked the tariff exclusion (see 2311130031). Jonathan Fried, counsel for Trina and Astronergy, said in an email that the companies "decided to dismiss their actions rather than relitigate the issues" settled by the Federal Circuit (Trina Solar (U.S.) v. U.S, CIT #s 22-00306, -00321) (Astronergy Solar v. U.S., CIT # 22-00308).