Exporters Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas argued in an Aug. 13 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis is not allowed by the statute in antidumping reviews and is only permissible for AD investigations (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).

A domestic glycine producer brought its case to the Court of International Trade to make up for omissions and errors it made in a scope ruling application, the U.S. claimed Aug. 9. It asked the court to reject the producer’s motion for judgment because it had failed to exhaust its arguments during the administrative process (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

An exporter and a petitioner each filed an opposition to the Commerce Department’s final results upon remand for an antidumping duty review on Indian-origin steel pipe, in which the department provided a strong defense of adverse facts available as a tool to combat the problem of noncooperative unaffiliated suppliers (see 2407100037) (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 12 ordered exporter Risen Energy Co. to appear at oral argument in an antidumping duty case after the company waived its right to appear (see 2408020019). Risen originally brought suit to contest the 2017-18 AD review on solar cells from China, arguing that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). The per curiam order from the court told Risen to appear at oral argument after the U.S. said it would appear (see 2408070003) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

Countervailing duty petitioner The Mosaic Co. and respondent OCP each moved the Court of International Trade for judgment last week in a combined suit on the first review of the CVD order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00246).

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

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 9 granted importer Blockstream USA Corp.'s bids to dismiss three of its own customs cases on the classification of its cryptocurrency miners. The court previously dismissed one of the cases for failure to prosecute after Blockstream didn't move to extend the time for the case to remain on the customs case management calendar. This dismissal was set aside after the company asked the court to help correct the error (see 2404050029). Counsel for Blockstream didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on why the company moved to dismiss the cases (Blockstream Services USA v. U.S., CIT #s, 22-00101, 23-00018) (Blockstream USA Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00149).

Importer Phoenix Metal Co. will appeal a June Court of International Trade decision sustaining CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duties on cast iron soil pipe from China by transshipping the pipe through Cambodia. In its decision, the court rejected Phoenix's due process claims, which faulted CBP for failing to notify the company that it was subject to an interim Enforce and Protect Act investigation (see 2406100027). The trade court said the importer failed to allege that it suffered specific-enough harm by being subject to the interim measures without adequate notice. According to the Aug. 9 notice of appeal, Phoenix will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).

An importer of China-origin garlic chunks argued in an Aug. 7 complaint that it shouldn’t have been found to be circumventing antidumping duties on fresh garlic from China, saying that its garlic chunks are exempt because they are preserved in citric acid (Green Garden Produce v. United States, CIT # 24-00114).

The Commerce Department "under protest" notified an Indonesian polyester textured yarn exporter of specific deficiencies in a questionnaire response it provided and gave it the chance to address them. As a result, the department reduced the exporter’s dumping margin from 26.07% to 9.20% (PT. Asia Pacific Fibers v. United States, CIT # 22-00007).