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

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 8 denied exporter Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Isihsal Endustrisi's motions to intervene in an antidumping suit and secure an injunction on its entries because its entries have "already been liquidated." Judge Jane Restani said that because the company failed to secure an injunction from the court prior to the liquidation of its entries, the court can't provide the relief the company seeks.

An importer of Vietnamese countertops said in a response to an Enforce and Protect Act investigation that it didn’t deny some of its countertops should have been covered by AD orders on Chinese quartz slabs -- it just hadn’t known they had originated from China (Superior Commercial Solutions v. United States, CIT # 24-00052).

Russian exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Commerce Department contradicted the countervailing duty statute in finding that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was de facto specific. Filing a reply brief on Aug. 7, the exporter said Commerce can't find that the agrochemical industry is the "predominant user of natural gas" by only comparing its usage among a subset of natural gas users as opposed to all natural gas users (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).

The U.S. said Aug. 6 that pistol maker Glock’s motion to compel discovery improperly required it to admit to "pure legal conclusions" and asked for irrelevant and disproportionate document production (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

Ljiljana Karadzic, wife of former Serbian President Radovan Karadzic, said the U.S. government's recent sponsorship of a U.N. Security Council Resolution related to petitions for sanctions delisting helps her case that the Office of Foreign Assets Control unreasonably delayed in ruling on her delisting petition (Ljiljana Karadzic v. Bradley Smith, D.D.C. # 23-01226).

The U.S. will appear for oral argument in an antidumping duty case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit despite appellants Risen Energy Co. and Canadian Solar waiving their rights to appear. Risen initially brought suit to challenge the 2017-18 AD review on solar cells from China. The company said the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). DOJ attorney Ashley Akers will appear for the government (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

A petitioner supported the Commerce Department’s decision, on remand, to use Brazilian rather than Mexican labor cost data in its calculation of the antidumping duty margins for two exporters of steel kegs from China (see 2407240018) (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave text-only notice to exporter Canadian Solar that it failed to respond to the court's notice of oral argument in an appeal on the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Exporter Risen Energy Co. filed the appeal to claim that the Commerce Department failed to use the best information when setting surrogate values for the company's backsheet and ethyl vinyl acetate inputs (see 2305170049). While Risen waived its right to appear at oral argument (see 2408020019), the court told Canadian Solar that failure to respond to notice of oral argument "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

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