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

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Dec. 3 upheld Greek shipping company Tango Marine's default judgment win against two Nigerian companies after rejecting the defendants' arguments that the district court lacked jurisdiction in the case. The panel said that the Nigerian companies, known collectively as the Elephant Group, failed to note any "meritorious defense" of their attack on the default judgment. As such, the district court had personal jurisdiction in the case and was right to issue the pricey default judgment (Tango Marine S.A. v. Elephant Group Limited, et al., 5th Cir. #21-10068).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 7 suspended liquidation of all unliquidated entries involved in a case challenging a decision by President Donald Trump to revoke a tariff exclusion granted to bifacial solar panels. The liquidation suspension comes after the trade court struck down the tariff exclusion withdrawal, finding it to be a clear misconstruction of the law since the relevant law only permits trade liberalizing alterations to existing safeguard measures (see 2111160032). After the ruling, the plaintiffs, led by the Solar Energy Industry Association, filed an unopposed motion for an order suspending liquidation, urging the court to halt liquidation until all appeals are final. Without such action from the court, it is possible that many of the subject entries will have liquidated and become final, the motion said (Solar Energy Industries Association, et al. v. United States, et al., CIT #20-03941).

The Court of International Trade partially sided with solar cell importer Aireko Construction, instructing CBP to properly liquidate its entries in accordance with the Commerce Department's instructions, but ruled against Aireko by finding that the importer did not properly challenge the instructions themselves. In a Dec. 7 opinion, Judge Claire Kelly said that CBP needs to correct its error by applying antidumping and countervailing duty rates different from those listed in Commerce's instructions but that Aireko failed to launch a challenge under Section 1581(i) -- CIT's "residual" jurisdiction -- to challenge the instructions.

The Department of Justice filed a motion, with the consent of the plaintiff -- palm oil importer Virtus Nutrition -- for an extension of time to reply to an amicus brief since the litigants are nearing a resolution of the case, DOJ said in the Dec. 3 filing. The case concerns a shipment of palm oil entered by Virtus that was excluded from entry by CBP over suspicions that the goods were made with forced labor. Virtus expects a sale and re-exportation of the palm oil following a U.S. Coast Guard inspection of the two-way hydrant system located at the port where the merchandise is being stored, the brief said. Once this inspection is completed, the goods will be on their way (Virtus Nutrition, LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00165).

A confidential opening brief from appellant ABB Enterprise Software is not in compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's rules, the appellate court said in a Dec. 6 notice of non-compliance. The Federal Circuit said that the document "does not contain the required proof of service or the proof of service indicates improper service of material that cannot be served through the court’s electronic filing system." ABB's case appeals a Court of International Trade ruling that sided against the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review. The opening brief in question argued that the CIT wrongly held that Commerce impermissibly speculated when finding that an antidumping duty respondent's reporting error supported disregarding the respondent's entire U.S. and home market databases (see 2111230087) (Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems, fka Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #21-2312).

The Court of International Trade granted a preliminary injunction against the liquidation of two plaintiffs' pig farrowing crate imports after they argued that their case raises serious legal questions over an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion case. In a Dec. 6 brief, the plaintiffs, Ikadan System USA and Weihai Gaosai Metal Product Co., said that since they have made a showing of irreparable harm, the burden in showing its success on the merits is lowered and that the mere questions raised by the case clear this hurdle. The Department of Justice also signed off on the injunction motion (Ikadan System USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #21-00592).

Pirelli Tyre Co. properly showed that it was not under Chinese government control for the first 10 months of an antidumping review period and thus subject to a separate rate analysis, the Commerce Department said in its Dec. 3 remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade. Since a Chinese company bought Pirelli in the 10th month of the review, though, the company is considered under Chinese government control from that point forward. The case had been remanded so that Commerce could reconsider the first 10 months of the review, before the sale (Qingdao Sentury Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 18-00079).

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

Commerce improperly applied a duty drawback adjustment to a Turkish aluminum exporter’s antidumping duty rate, because the imports the exporter used to claim drawback could not be used to make the exported merchandise, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group said in a brief filed Nov. 23 in support of its motion for judgment in the case (Assan Aluminiyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00246).