A September Court of International Trade decision is instructive in how to consider the Commerce Department's methodology for assessing de facto specificity regarding Quebec's On-The-Job-Training tax credit in a countervailing duty proceeding, exporter Marmen Energy Co. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Government of Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 13 denied requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea. In its opinion, the appellate court upheld the Commerce Department's finding that the Korean government didn't provide a countervailable benefit through its provision of electricity to respondents (see 2310230013). Commerce sufficiently carried out a less-than-adequate-remuneration analysis after the court rejected its original preferential rate analysis in 2019 (POSCO v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1525).

Cozy Comfort Company, which produces the Cozy, a “wearable blanket,” filed Dec. 8 in opposition of a DOJ motion for summary judgment in its classification case (Cozy Comfort Company v. U.S., CIT # 22-00173).

A domestic petitioner and Indian exporters argued over how an adverse facts available antidumping duty rate for one respondent should factor into the rate for non-individually examined respondents in the Commerce Department's 2020 administrative review on quartz surface products from India (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00007).

The Sierra Club on Dec. 12 moved to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit challenging the Department of Energy's approval of liquefied natural gas export applications for increased volumes submitted by Magnolia LNG and Golden Pass LNG Terminal. Sierra Club's decision came after DOE released a notice saying the authorizations for the two terminals have expired and are no longer in effect. Magnolia first moved to withdraw the lawsuit earlier this month (see 2312060049). (Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy, D.C. Cir. # 22-1217).

Countervailing duty petitioner Daikin America will appeal an October Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's decision to drop its subsidy finding against exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals concerning a 30-year land lease to one of its affiliates, Inox Wind Limited, by India's State Industrial Development Corp. The trade court said the subsidy finding couldn't be legal due to Commerce's interpretation of its regulation, which says the agency will attribute -- to the affiliates' combined sales -- subsidies received by related input suppliers whose inputs are mainly dedicated to the production of downstream merchandise. The court ruled the provision of electricity is not primarily dedicated to the production of granular polytetrafluorethylene, the subject of the CVD investigation, adding that Commerce misunderstood the production chain (see 2310160026) (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. United States, CIT # 22-00120).

The Commerce Department asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand on Dec. 11 in a countervailing duty case so it can reconsider or further explain its calculations for the ocean freight benchmark in light of a recent CIT ruling questioning the use of Descartes data. The present suit concerns the 2021 administrative review of the CVD order on solar products from China in which Commerce only used Descartes data to set the benchmark, prompting the case from solar cell exporters, led by Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. (Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00219).

The Court of International Trade extended the mediation period for a case brought by Evraz challenging the Commerce Department's denial of the importer's Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests. In the Dec. 11 text-only order, the trade court gave the parties until June 30, 2024, to resolve litigation led by Judge Leo Gordon. Evraz called for mediation, along with other litigants, to discuss the availability of a remedy for already liquidated entries (Evraz Inc. v. United States, CIT # 20-03869).