The Court of International Trade on March 1 rejected importer Diamond Tools Technology's request for attorney fees in its suit challenging CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. Judge Timothy Reif said that since the case presented two issues of "first impression," the government's position was "substantially justified."

Just as the Court of International Trade ruled, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can hear a Chinese diamond sawblade exporter’s case on a new issue arising from a separate rate determination even though CAFC has already decided a previous case regarding that same determination, an importer said Feb. 28 (China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

Even if adverse facts available were warranted for the calculation of an exporter’s rate, that rate should be set only to deter non-cooperation, not to destroy a company entirely, the exporter said Feb. 28 at the Court of International Trade (Pastificio Gentile S.r.l. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00037).

The Court of International Trade on March 1 denied importer Diamond Tools Technology's application for attorney fees in an Enforce and Protect Act lawsuit, finding that "the government was justified in litigating its position" regarding the finding of evasion since the "underlying legal issues were ones of first impression." The issues of whether CBP is bound by the timeline created by the Commerce Department's start of a circumvention inquiry and whether the importer made a "material and false statement or act, or material omission" under EAPA were both novel questions.

The Court of International Trade in a decision made public Feb. 29 rejected Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against its designation on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann said the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the government.

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

The 1930 Tariff Act doesn't demand the Commerce Department conduct individual reviews for exporters in sunset reviews, the government said Feb. 26 in a filing with the Court of International Trade (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).

The Commerce Department may include the same government subsidy in calculations for both antidumping and countervailing duty rates because the court has held those are two completely different things, DOJ said in a brief replying to a German exporter's comments on a remand redetermination (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).

The U.S. in a Feb. 27 motion defended its decision to calculate energy costs for a review's mandatory respondent directly, rather than as part of the respondent's selling, general and administrative costs, saying that the calculation was made more accurate because the Commerce Department had been given better information from a surrogate than it had ever received before (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).

Various solar cell exporters and importers defended their right to intervene in a Court of International Trade lawsuit on the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on solar cells and modules from Southeast Asian nations found to be circumventing the AD/CVD orders on these goods from China. Filing a pair of reply briefs, the exporters and importers said they have the right to intervene since they have an "interest in the property or transaction at issue" (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).