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

The Court of International Trade consolidated two cases contesting the Commerce Department's final results in the seventh administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystaline silicon photovoltaic cells from China, according to a Dec. 29 order. The two cases were brought by Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co. and Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Both cases challenge Commerce's use of adverse facts available relating to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program -- a position that has been ruled against by the trade court (see 2110200049). The order came following a joint status report that said that all parties agree that the two cases should be consolidated under the one brought by Wuxi Tianran. The order accompanying the joint status report partially lays out the briefing schedule, requiring motions for judgment to be filed by March 9, 2022 (Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00538).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found two filings in separate cases to not be in compliance with court rules. In a case appealed by M S International over whether the Commerce Department has the right to define "producers" when determining if there's enough industry support to launch antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (see 2110080035), the Federal Circuit found the appellant's opening brief to not be in compliance. The brief had redacted confidential information in its addendum, but MSI didn't submit a confidential version of the brief as well. In the second case -- an appeal over whether Commerce can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (see 2111230088), the Federal Circuit said that the paper copies submitted by the appellees of their notice regarding conflicts with oral argument aren't in compliance since they are improperly bound. The court doesn't accept paper copies in loose leaf binders, the notice said (Dong-A Steel Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2153) (Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1077).

Antidumping duty petitioner and defendant-appellant Welspun Tubular filed an unopposed motion Dec. 28 for an extension of time to request a full-court rehearing on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision that the Commerce Department can no longer make a particular market situation adjustment to an AD respondent's cost of production in a sales-below-cost test for the purposes of calculating normal value (see 2112100039). The ruling affirmed a host of Court of International Trade opinions that said the PMS adjustment is reserved solely for constructed value. Petitions for en banc rehearings in the case are due Jan. 9, and Welspun is requesting that this deadline be pushed to Feb. 8 (Hyundai Steel v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-1748).

The Court of International Trade reassigned five customs cases brought by Continental Automotive Systems from Judge Timothy Stanceu to Judge Jane Restani, in a Dec. 28 order signed by Judge Mark Barnett. Originally filed in 2017 and 2018, the cases concern the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification of Continental's probe element of nitric oxide sensors -- a mass-produced element of NOx sensors, designed for use in consumer passenger vehicles and trucks. Four of the five were placed under a test case. The Department of Justice filed its cross motion for summary judgment Dec. 22 (Continental Automotive Systems v. U.S., CIT #18-00026). The order didn't give a reason for the reassignment.

The Court of International Trade stayed proceedings in a countervailing duty case brought by PAO TMK, a member of the TMK group companies, in a Dec. 29 order. The case concerns the CVD investigation into seamless pipe from Russia, in which the Commerce Department found that TMK received countervailable subsidies through the provision of natural gas and through loans from Russian state-owned banks. Following a consent motion to stay, the trade court stayed the action until 75 days after the final ruling in the case and all subsequent remands (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT #21-00531).

Counsel for pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing resubmitted its entry of appearance at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Dec. 23, attempting to bring its filing in line with court rules. The appellate court previously found that the notice was not in compliance with court rules since the filing party, Ronald Oleynik of Holland & Knight, didn't have an electronic filing account (see 2112160069). In the updated filing, Steven Gordon was listed as principal counsel for Royal Brush (Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should uphold a lower court ruling establishing that the Commerce Department can apply total adverse facts available for a mandatory respondent's failure to provide its factors of production (FOP) data on a control number (CONNUM)-specific basis in an antidumping duty case, the Department of Justice argued in a Dec. 22 brief. DOJ said that the Court of International Trade correctly held that Commerce's requirement for CONNUM-specific reporting isn't subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, as the plaintiff-appellant Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial argues, but rather an exercise of Commerce's discretion (Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import & Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #21-2205).

The Commerce Department can't make a particular market situation adjustment to an antidumping duty respondent's cost of production in the sales-below-cost test, the Court of International Trade again said, sustaining the agency's remand results dropping the adjustment. In a Dec. 28 opinion, Judge Jane Restani also said that the issue of the date of the sale in the AD investigation was irrelevant since it wouldn't change the result of the investigation, which was a de minimis rate for respondent Borusan Mannesmann.

The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring filed two complaints at the Court of International Trade, one contesting the Commerce Department's final results in an antidumping duty review of MLWF from China and in a countervailing duty review of MLWF from China. The U.S. industry group said that Commerce erred in the AD review by deviating from its expected method when finding the final dumping margin for non-selected separate rate companies and that it erred in the CVD review by failing to properly construct benchmarks for veneers, fiberboard and paint, primer and stain (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00595) (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00596).