Three plaintiffs in an Enforce and Protect Act case at the Court of International Trade cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing Co. v. U.S. as being "directly relevant" to their own lawsuit. In Royal Brush, the Federal Circuit said CBP violated importer Royal Brush's due process rights by refusing to provide it access to the business confidential information in the EAPA proceeding (see 2307270038). In their case against CBP's finding of evasion of the AD/CVD orders on glycine from China, plaintiffs Newtrend USA Co., Starille and Nutrawave Co. said the Royal Brush decision relates to their first count, which also says CBP violated their due process rights. The companies said they are prepared to submit briefs on the significance of the opinion ahead of the deadline for the U.S. and the petitioner to submit their reply briefs (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).

The Court of International Trade in a July 31 order granted a motion from antidumping duty petitioners led by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products seeking to file its response to the court's questions for oral argument out of time. Judge Gary Katzmann granted the request despite exporter Goodluck India's motion to clarify whether the company had to respond to the submission, seeing as the petitioners filed their response nearly an hour late without filing a request to file it out of time (Goodluck India v. United States, CIT # 22-00024).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Spain, DOJ said July 31, arguing that respondent Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) failed to show that it shouldn't be subject to an AFA rate (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).

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

The Court of International Trade should reject a request by importer Southern Cross Seafood to supplement the record in a case over the denial of an import application for Chilean sea bass (Patagonian Toothfish) because the documents sought are not part of that record, DOJ and the National Marine Fisheries Service said July 24 (Southern Cross Seafoods v. U.S., CIT # 22-00299).

A sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey doesn't render a request for a changed circumstances review meaningless, Turkish exporter Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) said in a July 28 brief opposing motions to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00350).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in a July opinion, reversed a California district court's decision acquitting Yi-Chi Shih, an employee at China-based firm Chengdu RML, of conspiracy to violate export control laws via his export of semiconductors to China. Judges Andrew Hurwitz and Ryan Nelson said "a rational factfinder could find that the exported [monolithic microwave integrated circuits] were not exempt from the [Export Administration Regulations] as fundamental research."

The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available on countervailing duty respondent Risen Energy Co. for the Chinese government's failure to cooperate regarding the Export Buyer's Credit Program "fails to properly understand the Court precedent on this matter," Risen argued. Submitting a reply brief on July 26 at the Court of International Trade, the exporter said that while the U.S. "may be correct" that using AFA on a cooperative respondent due to the Chinese government's failure to cooperate may be legal, the court has cautioned Commerce "to mitigate the impact on the cooperating party" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S. CIT # 22-00231).

The Commerce Department has “never specified the scope, content or format” of a certification that a company’s U.S. customers didn't benefit from China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program, so the agency shouldn't have immediately applied adverse facts available to a Chinese exporter because its non-use certification didn’t fulfill its requirements, the exporter, Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber (GRT), said in a reply brief filed with the Court of International Trade July 21 (Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00229).