Plaintiffs in a case over the fifth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China were granted a consent motion for a statutory injunction, enjoining liquidation on their solar cell entries on July 30. Prior injunctions held up the liquidation of the entries, but they have come to pass, prompting the need for the new injunction. The companies whose entries are now suspended are Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co. and Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co (Canadian Solar Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00187).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from Novolipetsk Steel Public Joint Stock Company and Novex Trading (Swiss) SA on July 29 in a challenge of the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled flat rolled carbon-quality steel products. In November 2020, the Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's final results in the case, holding that it was reasonable for the agency to find that the statute permitted it to disregard sales it found were not bona fide from the review. After Novolipetsk and Novex took their case to the Federal Circuit, the plaintiffs also moved to reconsider the case in the trade court. CIT then denied their motion to reconsider the case in an April decision. The Federal Circuit's dissmissal of the appeal came without opinion.

The U.S. is seeking more than $18 million from importer Crown Cork & Seal in a July 28 complaint filed in the Court of International Trade alleging that the company fraudulently misclassified its metal lid imports to skirt a 2.6% duty rate. The goods -- metal lids for food, beverage, household and consumer products -- are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8309.90.0000 and are dutiable at that 2.6% rate, the Department of Justice said. Instead, CCS attempted to classify its metal lid imports from Europe between 2004 and 2009 under HTS subheading 7326.90.1000, which has duty-free treatment (The United States v. Crown Cork & Seal, USA, Inc. et al., CIT #21-361).

A request from a group of four Chinese steel companies to dismiss a case in which the U.S. government alleged the group stole trade secrets was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on July 26. The group, comprising Pangang Group Company (PGC) and three of its subsidiaries, is accused of stealing DuPont trade secrets for the production of titanium dioxide in violation of the Economic Espionage Act. In their motion to dismiss, the group claimed immunity from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), arguing that the group is an "instrumentality" of the Chinese government.

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

Defendant-intervenors and antidumping case petitioners, led by Catfish Farmers of America, filed comments to remand results in the Court of International Trade on July 28 in a case over an antidumping review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Having already submitted comments on the remand (see 2107160018), the catfish farmers added final comments, arguing that Commerce's continued reliance on total adverse facts available is properly supported by findings "already affirmed by the court," and that Commerce fully addressed the issues remanded by the court despite no longer relying on them (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

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

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

The Commerce Department sought a voluntary remand in another Court of International Trade case over Section 232 tariff exclusion denials, on July 26, offering a remand schedule of four tranches, with the fourth to be submitted 325 days after a potential remand order. The case was brought by California Steel Industries, which challenged 193 exclusion request denials from Commerce and then offered the four-tiered remand schedule to address logistics concerns (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00015). The voluntary remand motion is one of many offered by Commerce which, following the JSW Steel, Inc. v. United States CIT decision, has been remanding other Section 232 exclusion request challenges (see 2107230038). Asked if it's the agency's policy to issue blanket rejections of the exclusion requests and then seek voluntary remands in CIT cases, a Commerce spokesperson said, "The Commerce Department does not comment on matters currently in litigation. The Bureau of Industry and Security reviews each exclusion request on a case-by-case basis."

The Commerce Department should have disregarded petitioners' claims in a countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan, said sole respondent to the investigation Tau-Ken Temir in a July 21 brief in the Court of International Trade. The petitioners' conflict of interest claim "lacked merit, not even colorable merit," to the extent that Commerce should have found the petitioners were interfering in the investigation, TKT said. The exporter seeks to have the court throw out Commerce's rejection of its questionnaire responses (Tau-Ken Temir LLP et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00173).