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

The U.S. added two attorneys to its litigation team in the massive Section 301 case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing an amended notice of appearance on Nov. 20, the government tacked on Melissa Patterson and Joshua Koppel -- two attorneys in DOJ's Civil Appellate Division -- to the appellee team for the U.S. (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

The Commerce Department cannot make the contradictory finding that the process of assembly or completion of solar cells in Cambodia was insignificant, while simultaneously saying these processes, involving the formation of a positive-negative junction on a polysilicon wafer, give the solar cells their essential character, exporter BYD HK Co. said in a Nov. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade (BYD (H.K.) Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00221).

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

The scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China "unambiguously" applies to pipe fittings "in finished and unfinished form," AD petitioners Tube Forgings of America and Mills Iron Works argued in a Nov. 16 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Commerce's determination "eviscerates" the order's remedial effect by interpreting the term "unfinished form" to mean "create subcategories of pipe fittings in unfinished form," then saying these subcategories excluded certain pipe fittings in unfinished form, the brief said (Tube Forgings of America v. U.S., CIT # 23-00236).

The Court of International Trade agreed to dismiss importer Strato's customs suit on the classification of the company's parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling stock, hooks and other coupling devices, buffer and parts thereof. Strato filed the suit to claim that its goods were substantially transformed and thus should not be hit with Section 301 duties. The U.S. agreed with the dismissal of the action but no reason was provided for why the suit was ditched (Strato v. United States, CIT # 23-00142).

The U.S. said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should reject requests from exporters Guizhou Tyre and Aeolus Tyre to waive the requirement that they file a joint brief in an antidumping duty case or, alternatively, sever the two companies' proceedings. The government said in its Nov. 16 brief that due to the "substantial overlap in the exporters' cases, dividing the record and requiring two briefs would be "inefficient" (Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2163).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave exporter SeAH Steel Corp. more time to file its reply brief in the lead case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test when rooting out "masked" dumping. The exporter now has until Jan. 8, 2024, to file its brief (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

Importer Under the Weather's response to the U.S. motion to dismiss its customs suit on backpacking tents "rests on legal misunderstandings and a pleading standard that was abrogated over a decade ago," the government said in a Nov. 16 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The U.S. said the issue in the case is not whether it is "theoretically possible for a claim to exist" but whether Under the Weather plausibly alleged that a one-sentence approval from an import specialist was the "functional equivalent of a protest review" (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

The Commerce Department again failed to adhere to the Court of International Trade's order concerning the agency's phosphate rock benefit calculations regarding countervailing duty respondent JSC Apatit's mining rights, exporter Phosagro and its affiliate, Apatit, argued in remand comments at the trade court. The companies said that the remand results, which didn't make any changes to its position in the CVD investigation of phosphate fertilizers from Russia, ignored the court's mandate regarding Commerce's use of Apatit's Profit Before Tax figure in its profit ratio instead of its Gross Profit Figure (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00117).