Trade-Related Court Cases Filed July 25-31

August 2, 2022 by Jacob Kopnick|Penalties and Courts

The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 25-31:

Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd., Jinko Solar Co. Ltd., Jinkosolar Technology (Haining) Co. Ltd., Yuhuan Jinko Solar Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co. Ltd., Jiangsu Jinko Tiansheng Solar Co. Ltd., Jinkosolar (Chuhou) Co. Ltd., Jinkosolar (Yiwu) Co. Ltd. and Jinkosolar (Shangrao) Co. Ltd., challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China, covering entries in 2019-2020. #22-00219. Filed July 27.

Trina Solar Co. Ltd., Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co. Ltd., Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co Ltd., Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co. Ltd., Trina Solar (Hefei) Science & Technology Co. Ltd. and Changzhou Trina Hezhong Photoelectric Co. Ltd., challenging the Commerce Department's final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China, covering entries in 2019-2020. #22-00220. Filed July 27.

Risen Energy Co. Ltd., challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China, covering entries in 2019-2020. #22-00221. Filed July 28.

Moen Incorporated, challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasket seals and washers of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3926.90.4590 should be excluded from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.18. #22-00222. Filed July 28.

JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co. Ltd. and Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd., challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China, covering entries in 2019-2020. #22-00223. Filed July 28.

Moen Incorporated, challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its faucets of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8481.80.1020 and 8481.80.1030 should be excluded from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.38. #22-00224. Filed July 28.

Moen Incorporated, challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its brass and steel components of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 7324.90.0000 and 7419.99.5010 should be excluded from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.43. #22-00225. Filed July 28.

BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd., challenging the Commerce Department's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules from China, covering entries in 2019-2020. #22-00226. Filed July 28.

Sucden Americas Corp., challenging CBP's denial of its protest claiming its sugar (from Guatemala) of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 1701.99.5050, dutiable at 35.744 cents/kg, should be allowed to enter duty-free under the claimed CAFTA duty-free rate, classified under secondary subheading 9822.05.20. #22-00228. Filed July 29.

Qingdao Ge Rui Da Rubber Co. Ltd., challenging the Commerce Department's final results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on truck and bus tires from China, covering entries in 2020. #22-00229. Filed July 29.

Another four lawsuits were filed at the CIT to challenge lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on products from China (see 2009220029). For a full list, see the Pacer database.

Appeals of CIT Decisions

No appeals of Court of International Trade decisions were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during the week of July 25-31.