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).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 31 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty scope case after denying a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (see 2407240048). The AD order's scope language includes standard pipe but excluded line pipe, and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co.'s dual-stenciled pipes fit the industry specifications for both line and standard pipe. Two of the three judges deciding the case found that "meeting an additional specification" for line pipe "does not strip away the qualification of these pipes as standard pipes" (see 2405150027) (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).

The Court of International Trade on July 30 stayed Chinese printer cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp.'s lawsuit challenging its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List for four months or until the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force issues a final decision in the exporter's delisting request before the task force (Ninestar Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00182).

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

Multiple Indonesian glycine exporters argued July 29 that they have provided plenty of evidence they didn’t transship glycine from China. CBP and a petitioner, they said, are simply relying an a separate finding of affiliation and, otherwise, pure speculation (Newtrend USA v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week said that an entity can only violate the Plant Protection Act and Animal Health Protection Act for aiding, abetting, causing or inducing the illicit import of plant and animal products by knowingly taking part in the import process (Amazon Services v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, D.C. Cir. # 22-1052).

Opposing the Commerce Department’s second remand redetermination regarding Spanish utility-scale wind towers (see 2406250029), a wind tower trade coalition argued July 23 that part of an investigation’s collapsed mandatory respondent is only a holding company, and so shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the review (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).

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

The Commerce Department and exporter Teh Fong Min (TMF) International Co. said on July 26 that it will appeal a May Court of International Trade decision finding that the agency erred in revoking the antidumping duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents from Taiwan and China after it didn't receive a timely notice of intent to participate in the order's sunset reviews from a domestic producer (see 2405290050). The trade court told the agency to conduct the full sunset reviews because U.S. manufacturer Archroma U.S. filed substantive responses to the agency's notice of initiation of the sunset reviews. According to its notice of appeal, Commerce will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Archroma U.S. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00354).

A Colombian paper shopping bag exporter said in a complaint July 29 that the Commerce Department miscalculated the exporter’s dumping margin by failing to conduct a level of trade adjustment to its home market sales (Ditar v. U.S., CIT # 24-00130).