Chinese exporter JA Solar International's sales were destined for the U.S., and the Commerce Department was wrong to exclude the sales in an antidumping duty review, the exporter argued in a brief to the Court of International Trade. As evidence, JA cited respondent Inventec Solar Energy Corporation's (ISEC's) questionnaire responses showing its knowledge that the sales were meant for the U.S., corroborating evidence from ISEC on this point and evidence from JA Solar supporting ISEC's admissions of knowledge (JA Solar International Limited v. United States, CIT #21-00514).

The Commerce Department's decision to deem countervailable exporter Dongbu Steel's debt-for-equity swaps was unsupported, and violated the agency's own standard practice of not reexamining subsidy programs that were previously found non-countervailable without any new information, Dongbu Steel said in a March 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00047).

Antidumping duty respondents Best Mattresses International Company's and Rose Lion Furniture Company's challenge of the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis should be tossed since the DPA did not injure the plaintiffs, DOJ said in a March 11 brief at the Court of International Trade. Since the DPA ultimately found that no "masked" dumping was occurring, the use of the analysis, which is based on a statistical test called into question by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year, did not give Best Mattresses and Rose Lion any standing to challenge it, the U.S. argued (Best Mattresses International Company v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00281).

Mediation in an antidumping duty case will not result in a quicker resolution nor would it help in reaching a resolution, DOJ said in a March 16 motion opposing Japanese exporter Nagase & Co.'s bid for court-annexed mediation. DOJ said it looked at the issues of the case and decided not to request a voluntary remand. As such, it intends to fight Nagase's characterization of the issues, meaning the best way to handle the case will be to "simply brief and decide the claims on their merits," the U.S. said (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

Imported net wrap should be classified in Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8433 as part of harvesting machinery under subheading 8433.90.50 or agricultural machinery under heading 8436, rather than as textile material under heading 6005, RKW Klerks said in a motion filed March 15 at the Court of International Trade. RKW argued that the imported netwrap is "only used in harvesting machinery to produce round bales of hay, silage and fodder," a function that is "fixed with certainty at the time of importation" (RKW Klerks Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00001).

The Commerce Department ignored the Court of International Trade's and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's instructions when it continued to rely on the "likely selling price" of non-prime goods to set rates in an antidumping duty case, exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke said in a March 15 brief responding to Commerce's remand results. Dillinger says the agency continued to use facts otherwise available even after the trade court ruled it unsupported, arguing Commerce must instead use the company's actual data (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158).

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

Victoria's Secret and One Step Up filed 19 complaints at the Court of International Trade alleging that CBP had misclassified women's garments over a series of entries between 2002 and 2008. The 13 complaints (in Pacer) by Victoria's Secret and six by One Step Up filed on March 12 ask CIT to direct CBP to reliquidate the entries and refund the excess duties collected, with interest.

DOJ joined a motion to dismiss a countervailing duty case originally filed by CVD petitioner Dextar Wheels arguing that the Court of International Trade cannot order the Commerce Department to correct something it did not do in the first place. Filing its own motion to dismiss on March 15, DOJ said that the plaintiff, steel wheel importer Rimco, failed to make a claim on which relief can be granted since Commerce did not even establish an all-others rate in a CVD review -- precisely what Rimco is challenging (Rimco v. United States, CIT #21-00588).

The Court of International Trade extended the mediation period for a case brought by Evraz challenging the Commerce Department's denial of the importer's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In the March 15 order, the trade court gave the parties until April 29 to resolve litigation led by Judge Leo Gordon. Evraz called for mediation, along with other litigants, to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-03869).