No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) will appeal the Court of International Trade's decision sustaining the Commerce Department's decision to countervail Vietnamese currency undervaluation, according to an Oct. 21 notice of appeal. In August, the trade court upheld Commerce's finding that the currency undervaluation program was specific to the traded goods sector and thus countervailable in the countervailing duty investigation on passenger vehicle and light truck tires (see 2508220052). In an earlier decision, Judge Timothy Reif held that the agency had the authority to countervail currency undervaluation programs (see 2410280035). Kumho Tire now will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) v. United States, CIT # 21-00397).
The Commerce Department properly excluded importer Elysium Tiles' composite tile from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 20. After instructing Commerce to consider the (k)(2) scope factors on remand, Judge Jane Restani sustained the agency's (k)(2) analysis as reasonable.
The International Trade Commission inadequately supported its decision not to exclude Amsted Rail from the injury investigation on freight rail couplers (FRCs) from China and Mexico, the Court of International Trade held in a decision made public on Oct. 20. Judge Gary Katzmann held that the ITC didn't articulate a "rational connection" between Amsted's domestic production performance and the decision not to exclude Amsted, nor did it properly support its conclusion that Amsted's exclusion would "skew the data."
The following lawsuits were filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Oct. 8 decision clarifying the cross-owned input provider regulations also is applicable in a Turkish rebar case before CAFC, a petitioner said in an Oct. 13 letter (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).
Importer Veregy Central argued that CBP improperly assessed hefty antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cell imports from Thailand and Vietnam. In a complaint filed with the Court of International Trade on Oct. 17, Veregy said its goods were properly excluded from these duties due to President Joe Biden's duty pause on solar cells and modules from Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia, since its imports were within the scope of the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells and were consumed in the U.S. within 24 months of Biden's proclamation announcing the duty pause (Veregy Central v. United States, CIT # 25-00229).
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 20 sustained the Commerce Department's decision on remand to exclude importer Elysium Tiles' composite tile from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China. After being told by the court to consider the (k)(2) scope factors, Commerce flipped its scope finding on Elysium's tile to exclude the company's products from the orders. Judge Jane Restani reviewed the agency's (k)(2) analysis and found that while for three of them, the products' ultimate uses, channels of trade and means of advertisement, favored including the composite tile in the orders' scope, these factors are outweighed by the differences in the products' physical characteristics and user expectations.
The U.S. will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision vacating the Commerce Department's decision not to collect antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).
Three different solar cell and module exporters recently filed their opening briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a pair of cases on the Commerce Department's findings that the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on Chinese solar cells and modules are being circumvented through Thailand and Cambodia (Trina Solar Science & Technology (Thailand) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1940) (BYD (H.K.) v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1937).