The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 29 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The International Trade Commission published notices in the Nov. 22 Federal Register on the following AD/CVD injury, Section 337 patent or other trade proceedings (any notices that warrant a more detailed summary will be in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Nov. 22 on AD/CVD proceedings:
A listing of recent Commerce Department antidumping and countervailing duty messages posted on CBP's website Nov. 19-21, along with the case number(s) and CBP message number, is provided below. The messages are available by searching for the listed CBP message number at CBP's ADCVD Search page.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The U.S. ignored the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in defending its circumvention finding on exporter Canadian Solar, the solar panel exporter said in a Nov. 15 reply brief. Canadian Solar said the Commerce Department should not be shown "tremendous" deference, as claimed by the U.S., since the agency doesn't have "unbridled authority to make an affirmative finding of circumvention" (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00222).
Raising many of the same arguments seen in similar cases (see 2407010059 and 2407030064), a Thai solar panel exporter said Nov. 15 that the U.S. was “misstating” findings and contradicting itself in its own analysis when it found that solar panel importers were circumventing antidumping and countervailing duties on solar panels from China based on only one factor in the usual country-of-origin analysis (Trina Solar Science & Technology v. U.S., CIT # 23-00227).