Solar panel exporters are hoping to extend the deadline to file a petition for reheraing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case on whether President Donald Trump legally revoked a Section 201 tariff exclusion on bifacial solar panels. Asking the court for 14 more days to file the petition, the exporters, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association, said "good cause" exists for the extension (Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1392).

The Commerce Department "did not err" when it found exporter Dalian Hualing Wood Co.'s lone U.S. sale was bona fide in a countervailing duty review but not bona fine in the antidumping duty review on the same goods, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 18. Sustaining a 251.65% China-wide AD rate on Hualing's lone sale in the 2019-21 AD review of wooden cabinets and vanities from China, Judge Jane Restani said nothing in the new shipper review statute, nor any other statute, "compels Commerce to reach the same conclusion in distinct administrative proceedings, even if based upon the same sale."

No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.

A domestic antidumping duty petitioner challenged intervention of more companies in another ongoing case over a 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Canadian softwood lumber products (Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00206).

Exporter Canadian Solar International Limited filed a Dec. 15 notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade in its case challenging the Commerce Department's anti-circumvention finding on solar panels from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. In the proceeding, Commerce found that solar panels from these nations are circumventing the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China (Canadian Solar International v. United States, CIT # 23-00195).

A visit the Commerce Department made to a domestic tile manufacturer prior to a scope ruling on imported composite tile was proper and didn't bias Commerce in favor of the manufacturer in its final decision, DOJ said (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).

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

DOJ said an exporter waived its ability to object to the new results of an administrative review after remand, arguing it didn't adequately take advantage of its ability to comment on the review before the court (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00402).

Importer Amsted Rail Co. and its Mexican maquiladora affiliate ASF-K de Mexico again brought conflict-of-interest claims to the Court of International Trade involving the International Trade Commission's injury finding on freight rail couplers from Mexico. The Dec. 15 complaint was brought alongside its lawsuit against the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation (see 2311210077) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00268).

Importer CHR. Hansen filed a notice of dismissal in its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 12. The company filed the case in December 2021 to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its probiotics powder of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 2106.90.9897, dutiable at 6.4%, should be classified under subheading 3002.90.1000. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (CHR. Hansen v. United States, CIT # 21-00636).