Jacob Kopnick

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 27 per curiam order required litigants in an antidumping and countervailing duty scope case to file supplemental briefs (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1532) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1534).

DOJ struck a deal with Malaysian businessman Low Taek Jho, members of his family and trust entities he established to settle two civil forfeiture cases stemming from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad international embezzlement scheme, DOJ announced.

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's decision to pick a secondary mandatory respondent in an antidumping review despite temporal limits on the selection process. However, Judge Mark Barnett sent back the agency's methodology for picking the respondent due to its failure to explain its removal of Shandong Linglong Tyre Co. from the list of eligible exporters.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27 struck an entry of appearance filed by counsel for Encore Wire Corp., terminating the company as a defendant in a case on the 2019-20 antidumping review of aluminum wire and cable. The court said that the entry of appearance for three Cassidy Levy attorneys -- Myles Getlan, James Ransdell and Chase Dunn -- was noncompliant and that the attorneys failed to file a corrected version of the entry (Repwire v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1933).

The Commerce Department can't extend an antidumping and countervailing duty circumvention finding based on adverse facts available for one mandatory respondent on a "country-wide basis," exporter Trina Solar Co. argued June 25. Filing a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, Trina said Commerce made "no company-specific findings" on whether all the cooperative companies were circumventing the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells and, as a matter of law, can't impose the circumvention finding on those companies (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00228).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a June 26 text-only order granted the government's request for 30 more days to file its reply brief in a customs case from importer Blue Sky The Color of Imagination on the customs classification of calendar planners. The reply is now due Aug. 2 (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1710).

The U.S. in a June 25 brief defended the Commerce Department's finding that 16 of exporter Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co.'s input suppliers are government authorities based on adverse facts available, which was used due to the Chinese government's failure to provide adequate information (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).

Exporter Hindalco Industries told the Court of International Trade last week that the Commerce Department erred in finding that the provision of coal to the company below cost is de facto specific. Filing its motion for judgment, Hindalco added that in the case the court finds the supposed subsidy is specific, Commerce illicitly calculated the subsidy's benefit to the company (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00260).

The EU extended its steel safeguard measure until June 30, 2026, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Trade announced. The measure imposes tariff rate quotas "above which a 25% duty is levied on imports." The TRQs were imposed in response to the U.S. Section 232 measures.