The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 10 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The Court of International Trade on May 9 said jurisdiction is proper under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, for solar cell maker Auxin Solar and solar module designer Concept Clean Energy's challenge to the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty pause on Southeast Asian solar panels. Judge Timothy Reif said that the case contests Commerce's liquidation instructions and failure to order the collection of duties and not the underlying final determination in the AD/CVD proceedings themselves. In addition, the court allowed nine solar cell exporters and importers to intervene in the case, given that they adequately demonstrated they would be adversely affected by the case. However, Reif said the companies failed to establish intervention as a matter of right and can intervene only due to CIT Rule 24(b), which allows for permissive intervention.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 9 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Canadian Lumber Exporter Says It Isn’t Barred from Bringing Case to CIT During Separate NAFTA Appeal
A Canadian exporter of softwood lumber said in a May 2 reply brief that its appeal to a NAFTA panel shouldn’t foreclose it from seeking entirely different relief at the Court of International Trade (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).
The Court of International Trade on May 8 sent back the Commerce Department's treatment of antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum's raw material costs and hedging revenues due to issues in how the agency addressed the elements contemporaneously in the AD investigation on aluminum foil from Turkey.
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public May 9 sustained parts and remanded parts of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China. Judge Claire Kelly remanded the Commerce Department's decisions regarding its "solar glass and air freight valuations and its "methodology for calculating" adverse facts available. The judge sustained exporter Trina Solar's separate rate status; valuation of electricity, ocean freight, backsheet and ethylene vinyl acetate for the plaintiffs, led by Jinko Solar Import and Export Co.; use of JA Solar Malaysia's financial statements to set surrogate financial ratios; deduction of Section 301 duties from U.S. price; and use of AFA against the plaintiffs.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices May 8 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade in a text-only order instructed importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, to address "whether the court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a protest if the basis for the denial" is that CBP was "simply following" the Commerce Department's instructions (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).
The Commerce Department was wrong to deduct Section 301 duties from an exporter’s U.S. price as part of its antidumping duty calculation, that exporter said May 3 in defense of an earlier motion for judgment. It said Section 301 duties aren’t “normal import duties,” but rather remedial “special” duties that statute requires be included in export price calculations (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).