The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 20 opinion granted the motion from a group of Canadian exporters to reinstate their exclusion from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT ruling that overturned an expedited review that excluded them from the duties. The court also made the exclusion of the exporters effective back to August 2021, when the companies were first subjected to the order.

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

The scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China "unambiguously" applies to pipe fittings "in finished and unfinished form," AD petitioners Tube Forgings of America and Mills Iron Works argued in a Nov. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's determination "eviscerates" the order's remedial effect by interpreting the term "unfinished form" to mean "create subcategories of pipe fittings in unfinished form," then saying these subcategories excluded certain pipe fittings in unfinished form, the brief said (Tube Forgings of America v. U.S., CIT # 23-00236).

The Commerce Department cannot make the contradictory finding that the process of assembly or completion of solar cells in Cambodia was insignificant, while simultaneously saying these processes, involving the formation of a positive-negative junction on a polysilicon wafer, give the solar cells their essential character, exporter BYD HK Co. said in a Nov. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 17 upheld the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding on raw honey imports from Vietnam, which led to the retroactive imposition of antidumping duties on the products. Judge Leo Gordon said that legal and evidentiary claims from the plaintiffs, led by Sweet Harvest Foods, fell flat.

The Commerce Department imposed an "onerous level of certification" on countervailing duty respondent Risen Energy Co. regarding its supposed use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 17 opinion. Judge Jane Restani said that all the factors considered together, which included the provision of non-use certificates from Risen's U.S. buyers and government intrusion into these companies' financial records regarding years-old transactions, resulted in an "unnecessary level of verification."

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 20 opinion granted a group of Canadian exporters' motion to reinstate their exclusion from the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT ruling subjecting the companies to the order. Judge Mark Barnett said that while the second clause of Rule 60(b)(5) was not the proper basis for granting this request, the rule's third clause was, since the enforcement of the court's previous order subjecting the companies to CVD cash deposits is no longer equitable. The court also made the exclusion of the exporters effective going back to August 2021, when Barnett first subjected the companies to the order.

The Court of International Trade agreed to dismiss importer Strato's customs suit on the classification of the company's parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling stock, hooks and other coupling devices, buffer and parts thereof. Strato filed the suit to claim that its goods were substantially transformed and thus should not be hit with Section 301 duties. The U.S. agreed with the dismissal of the action but no reason was provided for why the suit was ditched (Strato v. United States, CIT # 23-00142).

Importer Under the Weather's response to the U.S. motion to dismiss its customs suit on backpacking tents "rests on legal misunderstandings and a pleading standard that was abrogated over a decade ago," the government said in a Nov. 16 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. said the issue in the case is not whether it is "theoretically possible for a claim to exist" but whether Under the Weather plausibly alleged that a one-sentence approval from an import specialist was the "functional equivalent of a protest review" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

Solar cell importer Greentech Energy Solution cannot argue both that it suffered no injury on its goods until CBP issued a notice of action and that it was not required to file a protest with CBP since the agency's actions were purely ministerial, the U.S. argued in a Nov. 16 reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss. Addressing Greentech's claims that its actions were not untimely nor improperly brought under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual" jurisdiction, the government said Greentech's Administrative Procedure Act claim must identify the specific final agency action it is challenging (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).