The Court of International Trade on May 9 allowed a case to proceed against the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on Southeast Asian solar panels, rejecting motions to dismiss from the government and nine solar cell importers and exporters.
Court of International Trade activity
The U.S. moved for a voluntary remand at the Court of International Trade to reconsider its decision to reject importer LE Commodities' requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The government said it will "ensure that it appropriately addresses the record evidence" on remand. LE Commodities assented to the remand bid (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 23-00220).
Even if the public can deduce some trends or information about a company's confidential product information from publicly available sources, that doesn't "negate the confidential nature of the information submitted" as part of an International Trade Commission investigation, the ITC told the Court of International Trade on May 8 (OCP v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00219).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade ruled May 9 that an importer would recoup 22.4% of Section 301 duties it paid on an entry of kids’ erasable e-writing tablets from China.
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 Court of International Trade in a May 1 decision made public May 9 upheld the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against mandatory respondent Risen Energy Co., though it remanded the methodology used to come up with the AFA rate. Judge Claire Kelly said that Commerce failed to pick from facts available and "instead created facts by manipulating evidence on the record."
A domestic catfish producer and petitioner brought a case to the Court of International Trade on May 9 contesting the Commerce Department’s 2020-21 review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The petitioner is currently involved in ongoing litigation regarding the department’s 2019-20 review (see 2403280061) (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00082).
The Court of International Trade last week granted exporter Red Sun Energy Long An Co.'s motion to supplement the record after the company noted the Commerce Department "omitted several critical pieces of information from the official certified copy" of the record in the 2023 anti-circumvention inquiry on solar cells from Vietnam it filed with the court (Red Sun Energy Long An Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00229).
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.