The Solar Energy Industries Association told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo scrapping the doctrine of Chevron deference to federal agencies should compel the appellate court to overturn the deferential standard established in Maple Leaf Fish Co. v. United States (see 2406280051) (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

Importer Performance Additives will appeal a May Court of International Trade decision finding that a duty drawback claim becomes deemed liquidated after one year if the underlying import entries are also liquidated and final, with finality defined as the end of the 180-day window in which to file a protest with CBP (see 2405310073). Judge Jane Restani said that as a result one of Performance Additives' drawback claims was deemed liquidated but another of its claims wasn't, since its entries weren't liquidated and final within one year of the claim being made. The importer will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Performance Additives v. United States, CIT # 22-00044).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 5 rejected an order by the Federal Maritime Commission that said ocean carrier Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp.'s detention charges collected from trucking company TCW were "unjust and unreasonable." FMC failed to meaningfully respond to Evergreen's arguments, the court said, and the responses the commission did offer were "implausible" (Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp. v. Federal Maritime Commission, D.C. Cir. # 23-1052).

Antidumping petitioner American Line Pipe Producers Association Trade Committee on July 8 dropped its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade on the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Greece. The petitioner brought its suit to claim that the Commerce Department accidentally included offsets for scrap not produced during the investigation period in its calculation of an exporter's normal value (see 2402200076). Counsel for the petitioner didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (American Line Pipe Producers Association Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT # 24-00012).

Glock opposed July 3 a U.S. motion for judgment in the gunmaker’s favor (see 2406280025), calling it “a blatant attempt by the Government to evade this Court’s ruling on the merits of Glock’s claim” (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

The U.S. and exporters led by Risen Energy Co. agreed July 8 to dismiss a case on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1524). The government appealed the Court of International Trade decision siding with Risen on the agency's land benchmark calculation and use of adverse facts available pertaining to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2312200026) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03912).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

The Commerce Department was right to consider the assembly of hardwood plywood in Vietnam “minor and insignificant” when it reached an affirmative circumvention ruling for 20 Vietnamese exporters, the U.S. said July 2 in response to importers’ and exporters’ multiple motions for judgment (see 2404020054) and 2402020054) (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The U.S. on July 1 claimed that the provision of customs law establishing deemed liquidation except where the determinations of admissibility are vested in an agency other than CBP "broadly applies" to all agencies that can make admissibility determinations and not just those capable of carrying them out (Inspired Ventures v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

A solar panel exporter again argued that the Commerce Department had instituted a double remedy by adjusting Trina Solar’s U.S. prices for the countervailing duties it paid for only five subsidy programs, and not the other six, in its review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar panels from China (Trina Solar v. U.S., CIT # 23-00213).