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

The Court of International Trade should dismiss Canadian exporter J.D. Irving's challenge to antidumping duty cash deposit instructions filed under the court's "residual" jurisdiction since it is not a novel issue and claims can be pursued under Section 1581(c), the antidumping jurisdiction, DOJ said in an April 4 brief (J.D. Irving, Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00641).

The Court of International Trade should not stay proceedings in an anti-circumvention inquiry challenge because, contrary to the U.S.'s contention, a case currently on appeal will not "dictate" the outcome of the case, plaintiffs HLDS (B) Steel and HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. said in an April 4 reply brief. Unique elements of the case brought by the plaintiffs undercut DOJ's claim that the unrelated appeal will resolve the matter at hand, the brief said (HLDS (B) Steel SDN BHD v. United States, CIT #21-00638).

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed a case brought by Oregon-based hemp manufacturer We CBD contesting CBP's seizure of over 3,000 pounds of hemp. In the March 31 order, Judge Frank Whitney said that We CBD's claims were barred by sovereign immunity or moot (We CBD v. United States, W.D.N.C. #3:21-00115).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential opinion April 4 remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In a letter following the opinion, Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to release the public version of the opinion on April 12, giving the litigants a chance review any confidential information. Per the case's complaint, the plaintiff, exporter Risen Energy Co., challenged Commerce's surrogate value for silver paste, the agency's calculation of the financial ratios and the pick for primary surrogate country, among other things (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, CIT #20-03743).

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

A recent stipulated judgment in a case brought by North American Interpipe granting the importer refunds on Section 232 steel and aluminum duties is relevant to six U.S. steel companies' court actions that are seeking to intervene in challenges to the Commerce Department's Section 232 exclusion denials, the steel companies said. Filing a notice of supplemental authority to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the steel companies said that the settlement is "relevant to the parties' arguments concerning the potential for settlement of these actions" (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2172).

The Commerce Department opened the record on remand to accept Turkish exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi's sections B and C questionnaire responses after the Court of International Trade ruled it was an abuse of discretion to reject the minutes-late submissions. In remand results filed April 1, Commerce dropped the dumping rate for Celik from 53.65% to 17.88%, centering the case on other issues in the antidumping duty investigation (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. U.S., CIT #21-00045).

Kirrin Hough is no longer employed by the Commerce Department, the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a notice withdrawing the attorney as co-counsel for the U.S. in an antidumping duty case. Since Hough's employment period with Commerce has ended, the attorney will no longer participate as counsel in the litigation, and Joshua Kurland will remain on as principal counsel, the notice said. The case concerns the AD investigation on biodiesel from Argentina in which exporter LDC Argentina challenged Commerce's move to redefine price adjustments to "disaggregate" the value actually agreed to by the buyer and the seller (see 2112130048) (Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-1988).

An importer is asking the Court of International Trade to direct CBP to reliquidate entries of Chinese citric acid anhydrous that Thatcher says CBP improperly liquidated as subject to antidumping and countervailing duties. In its March 31 complaint, Thatcher said that CBP extended liquidation of the entries with neither a "statutory basis" nor the "legal authority" to do so and without instruction from the Commerce Department (Thatcher Company, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00067).