The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave text-only notice to exporter Canadian Solar that it failed to respond to the court's notice of oral argument in an appeal on the 2017-18 antidumping duty review on solar cells from China. Exporter Risen Energy Co. 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). While Risen waived its right to appear at oral argument (see 2408020019), the court told Canadian Solar that failure to respond to notice of oral argument "may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

The chair and ranking member of the House Select Committee on China, along with a bipartisan group of 53 representatives, filed an amicus brief last week in the suit against the TikTok ban to support the constitutionality of the ban (see 2406070023) (TikTok v. Merrick Garland, D.C. Cir. # 24-1113).

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.

A petitioner supported the Commerce Department’s decision, on remand, to use Brazilian rather than Mexican labor cost data in its calculation of the antidumping duty margins for two exporters of steel kegs from China (see 2407240018) (New American Keg v. U.S., CIT # 20-00008).

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).

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).

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 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 Court of International Trade on Aug. 1 reassigned to Judge Gary Katzmann from Judge Timothy Stanceu two related antidumping duty scope cases regarding steel truck wheels from China. The lead plaintiffs in the proceedings are Asia Wheel Co. and Vanguard National Trailer Corp., which filed the cases to challenge the Commerce Department's "substantial transformation" analysis regarding steel truck wheels made in Thailand with either Chinese-origin rims or discs (see 2407020049). The court didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the switch (Asia Wheel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00143) (Vanguard National Trailer Corp. v. U.S., CIt # 24-00034).