Solar cell exporter Risen Energy Co. may not amend its complaint to add a claim against the countervailability of China's Article 26(2) tax program in a suit challenging the 2020 countervailing duty review on solar cells from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 30 opinion. Judge Jane Restani said that because the issue was not raised administratively at any point, Risen now could not bring the claim before the court. Waiving the exhaustion requirement is "inappropriate" because the exporter does not raise a "pure question of law" but one that requires additions to the record, Restani said.

Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. is likely to show that the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over the company's challenge to its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the trade court ruled in a Nov. 30 opinion.

The Commerce Department ignored its own framework for "linking evidentiary findings to conduct" relevant to antidumping proceedings and perverted the "rebuttable" presumption of state control," exporters Double Coin Holdings and China Manufacturers Alliance argued in their opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Nov. 28. The pair challenged Commerce's finding that Double Coin didn't rebut the presumption of Chinese state control in a review on off-the-road tires from China, saddling the firm with the 105.31% China-wide rate (China Manufacturers Alliance v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2391).

The Commerce Department went too far when it rejected all of Vietnamese exporter Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co.'s submitted factual information in three anti-circumvention inquiries on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China, Taiwan and South Korea, Hoa Phat said in a trio of complaints at the Court of International Trade. The exporter said that while Commerce has some discretion in how it conducts AD proceedings, "there is substantial court precedent that Commerce cannot abuse this discretion" (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. United States, CIT #s 23-00248, -00249, -00250).

The Court of International Trade should not grant improper Diamond Tools Technology's application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act since the government's position in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation was "substantially justified" and the case presented a "matter of first impression and a novel issue," the U.S. argued in a Nov. 27 reply brief (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

A case challenging President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products shouldn't be stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of the Chevron deference doctrine, the government told the high court in a Nov. 27 brief. Replying to exporter Oman Fasteners' petition for a writ of certiorari, DOJ said the case involving the review of Chevron, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, will not affect the present dispute because Loper Bright doesn't involve "challenges to actions taken by the President" (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Sup. Ct. # 23-432).

The current scope of ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on aluminum extrusions from 15 countries would impose heavy costs on U.S. manufacturers and consumers, and as written would make it nearly impossible for CBP to administer and importers to comply, said a bevy of large multinational corporations and trade associations in comments filed recently filed with the Commerce Department.

The Court of International Trade in a Nov. 27 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of countervailing duty respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not Kaptan's cross-owned input supplier. Judge Gary Katzmann upheld Commerce's finding that Nur's steel scrap was not necessarily primarily dedicated to Kaptan's rebar production, and its consideration of Nur's business activities as part of this analysis.

The Commerce Department properly hit exporter Kumar Industries with a 13.61% adverse facts available dumping rate due to the respondent's "inadequate explanations" regarding one of its partners' ownership interest in two unnamed companies, companies A and B, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Nov. 22 opinion. Judge Timothy Stanceu sustained the rate as part of the first antidumping duty review on glycine from India, finding that Kumar "raised more questions than it answered" in its submissions, preventing Commerce from conducting a proper affiliate analysis.