Exporter Risen Energy Co. waived oral argument in its appeal of the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Risen filed the appeal to claim that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). The exporter also challenged the agency's calculation of its financial ratios. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set oral argument in the case for Sept. 3 (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

The Commerce Department was allowed to rescind the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood moldings and millwork products from China, the U.S. said July 30 in response to several exporters’ April 25 motion for judgment (see 2404240065) (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 reassigned to Judge Gary Katzmann from Judge Timothy Stanceu two related antidumping duty scope cases regarding steel truck wheels from China. The lead plaintiffs in the proceedings are Asia Wheel Co. and Vanguard National Trailer Corp., which filed the cases to challenge the Commerce Department's "substantial transformation" analysis regarding steel truck wheels made in Thailand with either Chinese-origin rims or discs (see 2407020049). The court didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the switch (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00143) (Vanguard National Trailer Corp. v. U.S., CIt # 24-00034).

In a post-oral argument (see 2407250041) submission, all plaintiffs in a case regarding the scope of an antidumping duty order on steel wheels from China again pushed back against the government, saying that DOJ was misrepresenting communications during the order’s original investigation (Asia Wheel v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00096).

An aluminum foil importer added its own motion for judgment to a stack of cases, primarily coming from the foil and solar panel industries, challenging the Commerce Department’s alleged overemphasis on only one or two factors out of the five used to analyze a product’s country of origin in evasion investigations (see 2407030064, 2406140059 and 2401230041) (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

The Commerce Department should have treated exporter Koehler's unpaid antidumping duty liability as a selling expense that lowered constructed export price (CEP) instead of as an increase to the cost of production, antidumping duty petitioner Domtar Corp. argued at the Court of International Trade. Filing a complaint on Aug. 1, Domtar said CEP should have been lowered since the expenses were "associated with commercial activities in the United States" (Domtar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00113).

The Commerce Department “misunderstood” a court order to explain why an industry support calculation didn’t involve double-counting, an importer said July 26 in a reply to the government (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).

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

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo rejecting the Chevron principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes doesn't call for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to revisit a decision sustaining the sanctions designation of former Afghan government official Mir Rahman Rahmani and his son, Hafi Ajmal Rahmani, the U.S. said this week (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).

A Chinese garlic exporter filed a complaint July 31 in the Court of International Trade claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly determined in an antidumping duty review that its U.S. sales were not bona fide and denied it a separate rate (Jining Huahui International Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00111).