After the Court of International Trade remanded the 323.12% adverse facts available antidumping duty rate received by an Indian quartz countertop exporter that missed a 10 a.m. deadline by five hours during the COVID-19 pandemic (see 2405290065), all parties reached a settlement would see the exporter get a new rate of 3.58% (Cambria Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00007).

The Commerce Department improperly found that its off-grid solar charging modules didn't qualify for two exclusions to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells from China, U.S. importer GameChange Solar Corp. argued Oct. 15. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade, GameChange said the agency illegally "disregarded, discounted, and mischaracterized contradictory information on the record including photographs submitted" by the importer (GameChange Solar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00174).

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

In oral arguments Oct. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that the plaintiff challenging an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding whose entries have all already been liquidated was likely not going to succeed in reversing the dismissal of its case by the Court of International Trade (see 2208180045) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

Another plaintiff in a sprawling case regarding an affirmative circumvention finding for Vietnamese hardwood plywood added its own support Oct. 15 to its side’s second motion for judgment. It said that the unusual circumstances that led the Commerce Department to essentially conduct a review of 57 companies without a mandatory respondent were “the result of its own misguided decisions” (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

In response to a U.S. claim that it couldn't move for a motion on its pleadings before issues of fact were settled by discovery (see 2409260061), an importer of tubing for perforating guns said Oct. 15 that it was “impossible” for CBP to find that one of its products should have been classified under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading between the time the importer sought a Section 232 exclusion request and the time it shipped its entry into the country (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

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

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on polyester textured yarn from Indonesia that slashed exporter PT. Asia Pacific Fibers' AD rate from 26.07% to 9.2%. On remand, Commerce dropped its use of adverse facts available and relied on Asia Pacific's submitted information under protest.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last week held that tire retailer Texas Truck Parts & Tire was the "beneficial owner" of tires imported by Chinese manufacturers and, as such, is liable for excise taxes on the imports (Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States, 5th Cir. # 23-20588).

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