Jacob Kopnick

The U.S. and exporters led by Risen Energy Co. agreed July 8 to dismiss a case on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1524). The government appealed the Court of International Trade decision siding with Risen on the agency's land benchmark calculation and use of adverse facts available pertaining to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2312200026) (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03912).

A former prisoner at the Hunan Chishan Prison in China sued Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. and Techtronic Industries Co. in the Eastern District of Wisconsin for importing goods made with forced convict labor. The individual, using the pseudonym Xu Lun, alleged that the firms violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which allows for civil suits against parties that knowingly benefit from taking part in a venture which the party "knew or should have known was engaged in forced labor" (Xu Lun v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., E.D. Wis. # 24-803).

The U.S. on July 1 claimed that the provision of customs law establishing deemed liquidation except where the determinations of admissibility are vested in an agency other than CBP "broadly applies" to all agencies that can make admissibility determinations and not just those capable of carrying them out (Inspired Ventures v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

The International Trade Commission told the Court of International Trade on July 3 that it fully responded to the court's instructions when it reconsidered the data it relied on when measuring in-scope imports from Germany and Mexico, despite claims to the contrary from Russian pipe exporter PAO TMK (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT # 21-00532).

The Commerce Department dropped the subsidy rate for exporter KG Dongbu Steel Co. from 10.52% to 5.89% after deciding on remand not to countervail the company's three debt-to-equity restructurings. The trade court remanded Commerce's decision in the 2019 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea to countervail the restructurings after declining to countervail them in the preceding three CVD reviews (see 2404040043) (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).

The Court of International Trade heard oral argument last week on the government's motion for alternative service in a customs penalty case against German paper exporter Koehler Oberkirch. The U.S. claimed that it was proper to serve Koehler via its U.S. counsel, attorneys at Holland and Knight, while the exporter said the government should have sought service through "diplomatic channels" (U.S. v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

Douglas Robertson, former vice president of KanRus Trading Co., pleaded guilty on July 2 to conspiring to violate U.S. export laws by shipping "sophisticated and controlled avionics equipment to customers in Russia," DOJ announced.

A Hallandale, Florida, resident was charged on July 2 with smuggling controlled goods into Russia from the U.S. Kirill Gordei, president of Florida-based freight forwarding company Apelsin Logistics, faces three counts -- conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S., smuggling goods from the U.S. and exporting a spectrometer, a controlled item, unlawfully -- DOJ announced. A Belarus citizen and U.S. permanent resident, Gordei faces maximums of five, 10 and 20 years in prison for the charges, respectively.

Antidumping duty petitioner Ventura Coastal invoked the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo -- which overturned the principle of Chevron deference -- to claim that the Court of International Trade doesn't need to adhere to the Commerce Department's interpretation of the statute "defining affiliation between parties" (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

The EU on July 3 declined to extend the protections in the Energy Charter Treaty -- a trade and investment deal for the energy sector -- to investments and investors from Russia and Belarus in order to boost its sanctions enforcement efforts, the European Commission announced. While neither Russia nor Belarus is a party to the Energy Charter Treaty, investors from these countries could theoretically use corporations set up in a signatory country to allege that the EU or its member states have violated "investment protection obligations" of the ECT and bring investor-state dispute settlement proceedings, the commission said. The EU's move eliminates the basis for making any such claim.