The Court of International Trade greenlighted the Department of Justice's second motion for an extension to file comments on the remand results in a Dec. 8 order submitted in a case over an antidumping scope ruling. Plaintiff-intervenor SIGMA Corporation opposed the bid, arguing that a further delay will prejudice it. SIGMA currently is wrapped up in parallel litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the defendant-intervenor in the CIT case, Island Industries Inc., sued SIGMA and others, arguing that the companies violated the False Claims Act by not paying antidumping duties on their welded outlet imports. While a jury verdict has been entered, SIGMA is seeking a new trial since the verdict was "against the weight of the evidence," SIGMA said (Vandewater International Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00199).

Plaintiffs challenging an antidumping review, led by Hung Vuong Corporation, will appeal an October Court of International Trade opinion upholding the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available, the plaintiffs said in a Dec. 8 notice of appeal. The decision, which came in a case over an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Commerce's use of AFA was originally remanded by the court, but was then sustained after swapping out the grounds on which the AFA finding was based (see 2110130031). The agency ultimately based the AFA finding on Hung Vuong's failure to retain source documents on feed consumption, production records and sales correspondence, and Hung Vuong's failure to report factors of production data on a control number-specific basis (Hung Vuong Corp., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Dec. 3 upheld Greek shipping company Tango Marine's default judgment win against two Nigerian companies after rejecting the defendants' arguments that the district court lacked jurisdiction in the case. The panel said that the Nigerian companies, known collectively as the Elephant Group, failed to note any "meritorious defense" of their attack on the default judgment. As such, the district court had personal jurisdiction in the case and was right to issue the pricey default judgment (Tango Marine S.A. v. Elephant Group Limited, et al., 5th Cir. #21-10068).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 suspended liquidation of all unliquidated entries involved in a case challenging a decision by President Donald Trump to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels. The liquidation suspension comes after the trade court struck down the tariff exclusion withdrawal, finding it to be a clear misconstruction of the law since the relevant law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032). After the ruling, the plaintiffs, led by the Solar Energy Industry Association, filed an unopposed motion for an order suspending liquidation, urging the court to halt liquidation until all appeals are final. Without such action from the court, it is possible that many of the subject entries will have liquidated and become final, the motion said (Solar Energy Industries Association, et al. v. United States, et al., CIT #20-03941).

The Court of International Trade partially sided with solar cell importer Aireko Construction, instructing CBP to properly liquidate its entries in accordance with the Commerce Department's instructions, but ruled against Aireko by finding that the importer did not properly challenge the instructions themselves. In a Dec. 7 opinion, Judge Claire Kelly said that CBP needs to correct its error by applying antidumping and countervailing duty rates different from those listed in Commerce's instructions but that Aireko failed to launch a challenge under Section 1581(i) -- CIT's "residual" jurisdiction -- to challenge the instructions.

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

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

A confidential opening brief from appellant ABB Enterprise Software is not in compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 6 notice of non-compliance. The Federal Circuit said that the document "does not contain the required proof of service or the proof of service indicates improper service of material that cannot be served through the court’s electronic filing system." ABB's case appeals a Court of International Trade ruling that sided against the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review. The opening brief in question argued that the CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error supported disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases (see 2111230087) (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).

Pirelli Tyre Co. properly showed that it was not under Chinese government control for the first 10 months of an antidumping review period and thus subject to a separate rate analysis, the Commerce Department said in its Dec. 3 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Since a Chinese company bought Pirelli in the 10th month of the review, though, the company is considered under Chinese government control from that point forward. The case had been remanded so that Commerce could reconsider the first 10 months of the review, before the sale (Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00079).

The Court of International Trade granted a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of two plaintiffs' pig farrowing crate imports after they argued that their case raises serious legal questions over an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. In a Dec. 6 brief, the plaintiffs, Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co., said that since they have made a showing of irreparable harm, the burden in showing its success on the merits is lowered and that the mere questions raised by the case clear this hurdle. The Department of Justice also signed off on the injunction motion (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592).