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

The Court of International Trade on May 5 sustained a recalculation of an exporter’s antidumping duty rate set in a recent administrative review on solar cells from China. The trade court had in October remanded Commerce’s final results of the 2016-17 review to the agency, after finding Commerce improperly applied partial adverse facts available to the rate it assigned to Risen Energy based on the refusal of Risen’s unaffiliated suppliers to cooperate in the review. CIT said AFA rates must promote cooperation and accuracy, and Commerce didn’t explain how Risen’s AFA rate did so. On remand, Commerce switched to neutral facts available for the relevant portion of Risen’s rate calculation, but did so “under respectful protest.” The agency’s “decision not to use partial AFA to calculate Risen’s dumping margin is consistent with the directive … that accuracy must be the driving force behind a decision to draw an adverse inference,” CIT said.

The Commerce Department backed its decision to not collapse companies into a single entity in an antidumping case, according to a May 5 reply brief to the Court of International Trade in support of the agency's remand redetermination. In a final affirmative antidumping duty determination on stainless steel flanges from India, Commerce originally consolidated Echjay, Echjay Industries Private Limited, Echjay Forgins Industry Private Limited and Spire Industries Private Limited into one entity since they were all owned by the Doshi family in India. After a CIT remand, Commerce reversed course, finding substantial evidence, including decrees from the Bombay High Court, indicating a “familial and business separation” between the companies. In its reply, Commerce addressed opposition from petitioners to the remand redetermination, and included a detailed analysis of why the companies are not affiliated and thus do not warrant being collapsed into a single entity.

Following a key decision from the Court of International Trade striking down Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum "derivatives" (see 2104050049), steel nail importer Hilti filed a lawsuit of its own in the court seeking to reap the benefits. In a May 5 complaint, Hilti made several arguments similar to those in PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, et al. Among other things, Hilti said the already struck-down Section 232 tariff expansion to include steel derivatives was improper because there was no underlying report from the Commerce Department (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

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

Truck and bus tire exporter Guizhou Tyre Co. cited a recent Court of International Trade opinion to argue that it should be given an individual dumping rate in an antidumping investigation of truck and bus tires from China, in an April 30 notice of supplemental authority. Drawing on CIT's April 29 opinion in Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. U.S. (see 2104300079), Guizhou claimed that an argument it made in its own case in CIT directly mirrors one accepted by the court about how de facto government control is determined by the Commerce Department.

The Court of International Trade remanded a trade adjustment assistance case back to the Labor Department after the agency denied a unionized group of former AT&T call center employees the aid. In a May 4 opinion, Judge M. Miller Baker found that Labor failed to discuss or even reference the union's evidence of why the trade adjustment assistance was warranted in its determination, warranting a remand for reconsideration of the agency decision. The former call center employees worked for AT&T at the Kalamazoo, Michigan, call center location and were let go following the telecommunications company's decision to relocate the jobs to Mexico, the Philippines and the Caribbean.

A nail importer and the Justice Department have agreed that judgment should be awarded in favor of the importer and the Section 232 tariffs on "derivatives" paid by the importer should be refunded, according to a joint status report filed April 30 (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 20-00037). Oman Fasteners and DOJ say the Court of International Trade's recent decision in a case involving PrimeSource is "parallel and substantially similar" to the main issue in Oman Fasteners' lawsuit (see 2104050049). Oman Fasteners and DOJ urged the court to rule in favor of the exporter on the question of the timeliness of the tariff expansion but to dismiss Oman Fasteners' remaining claims. Oman Fasteners also moved that the court “order other appropriate relief, including terminating Plaintffs' obligations to post continuous bonds to cover duties enacted pursuant to” the president's decision to expand the tariffs. Oman Fasteners also filed an unopposed motion for entry of final judgment in the case.

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

Tesla filed a lawsuit challenging the imposition of lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China, becoming the latest company to join the litigation involving more than 3,700 other cases. In an April 30 complaint filed with the Court of International Trade, Tesla, as an importer of goods subject to the Section 301 tariffs, launched its lawsuit, which will be subject to an automatic stay pursuant to a recent administrative order from the court (see 2104290048). The order pauses all filings challenging the tariffs that are not placed under the HMTX and Jasco Products test case.