Another importer alleged June 7 that the Commerce Department improperly relied on competitors’ unsupported claim that they, as domestic producers, could provide enough of an input -- aluminum rod, this time -- to cover the importer’s needs. As a result, the importer had been forced to pay “tens of millions” of dollars in Section 232 tariffs, it said (Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

Several Russian phosphate exporter filed the opening brief in its appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 7. They argued that the Commerce Department’s de facto specificity finding regarding the Russian government’s provision of natural gas to them was incorrect, as their industry consumed only 4.7% of the total quantity of gas provided (The Mosaic Company v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1593).

Honeywell International on June 7 moved to unseal various pleadings in its customs case on the classification of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies. The importer moved to unseal its motion for summary judgment and five of seven exhibits accompanying the motion. Honeywell said the government consented to the motion (Honeywell International v. United States, CIT # 17-00256).

The Commerce Department on June 10 changed the subsidy that it used to derive the adverse facts available countervailing duty rate for China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a CVD review, following a rebuke from the Court of International Trade. In its remand results in a suit on the 2017 review on narrow woven ribbons from China, Commerce used the 0.87% subsidy rate for the Export Seller's Credit Program in a CVD proceeding on chrlorinated isocyanurates from China to set the CVD rate for the EBCP (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States, CIT # 20-00059).

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

A domestic producer of glycine brought a motion for judgment against the U.S. on June 6 regarding a negative scope ruling that calcium glycinate was too far removed a precursor of glycine to be covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on glycine (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

The Commerce Department on June 7 lowered the dumping margin for nine separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, from 42.57% to 31.63%, after revising aspects of its dumping analysis (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT # 19-00144).

A defendant-intervenor in an exporter’s case challenging the results of a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada on June 6 opposed a motion to stay proceedings while a similar case winds its way through the appeals process. It argued that while the case on appeal deals (again) (see 2107150032) with the proper use of the “Cohen’s d test,” (see 2401110037) the case is not applicable in its own litigation (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).

Exporters Jinko Solar Holding Co. and Boviet Solar Technology Co., along with various of their subsidiaries and affiliated importers, moved to intervene in a case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's pause of antidumping and countervailing duties on Southeast Asian solar panels (Auxin Solar v. United States, CIT # 23-00274).

In the challenge to the law that would shut down TikTok in the U.S. or force parent ByteDance to sell the social media giant, TikTok and ByteDance submitted a statement of issues June 6 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).