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

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 5 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to lower the countervailing duty subsidy rate for exporter Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. related to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, from 10.54% to 0.87%. The result is a final, recalculated 22.2% total subsidy rate for Yama in the 2017 administrative review of the CVD order on narrow woven ribbons from China.

Cruise Car, Inc. on Aug. 1 voluntarily dismissed its 2020 customs case against the United States. The golf cart company never filed a complaint (Cruise Car, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03933).

Parts of the expert testimony submitted by the U.S. in a criminal export control case should be excluded from the trial because the experts relied on State Department commodity-jurisdiction determinations prepared outside the court, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky said July 31. The court said the defendants didn't have a chance to cross-examine the State Department officials who prepared the determinations because they didn't offer testimony during trial.

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

Citing untimeliness, the U.S. on Aug. 2 sought partial dismissal of a case brought by an aluminum rod importer alleging that the Commerce Department had denied its Section 232 tariff exclusion request on the basis of promises made by a competitor (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

The U.S. opposed Turkish exporter Habas Sinai's motions to intervene as an intervenor in an antidumping case and for an injunction on the liquidation of its entries, arguing that Habas' entries are already liquidated and that the company offers no "good cause" for its delay for timely seeking an injunction from the court (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

The Commerce Department was allowed to rescind the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood moldings and millwork products from China, the U.S. said July 30 in response to several exporters’ April 25 motion for judgment (see 2404240065) (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).

The Commerce Department chose the wrong primary surrogate country in its antidumping duty review on aluminum foil from China, multiple exporters argued in a motion for judgment July 29. The department chose Romania, citing minor factors of production and slightly more contemporaneous data, over Malaysia and Bulgaria, which were more accurate, they claimed (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00264).

Exporter Risen Energy Co. waived oral argument in its appeal of the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Risen 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). The exporter also challenged the agency's calculation of its financial ratios. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set oral argument in the case for Sept. 3 (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).