Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has the authority to reinstate the Commerce Department's original determination attributing subsidies received by an exporter's cross-owed input supplier to the exporter itself (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1431).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 15 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty review on Indian frozen warmwater shrimp after it affirmed the Court of International Trade's decision to sustain the Commerce Department's use of antidumping duty respondent Z.A. Sea Foods' Vietnamese sales to calculate normal value (see 2406070034). The decision was issued without an accompanying opinion. The trade court said petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee failed to flesh out its claim that, since ZASF's Vietnamese sales were not actually for consumption in Vietnam, Commerce couldn't use them to set normal value (see 2212070036) (Z.A. Sea Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).

In litigation brought by a Vietnamese solar panel exporter, an importer said July 9 that the Commerce Department couldn’t find that all of a country’s exporters had circumvented antidumping and countervailing duty orders based on finding that one mandatory respondent did (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00228).

Importer Atlas Power is attempting to use a U.S. request to withdraw an admission of fact in a customs case to root out the government's "alternative classification" of the graphics processing units at issue, the U.S. said following Atlas' opposition to the U.S. motion (Atlas Power v. United States, CIT # 23-00084).

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on July 9 denied a U.S. defense manufacturer's motion to dismiss allegations that it criminally smuggled weapons by selling drawings of a rare earth permanent magnet used in F/A-18 Super Hornets to China (U.S. v. Quadrant Magnetics, LLC, W.D. Ky. # 3:22-CR-88-DJH).

The U.S. filed its own supplemental brief July 9 in response to a recent Supreme Court decision, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, arguing that an advocacy group and plaintiff in a forced labor case (see 2402230046) lacks standing to bring its suit to the Court of International Trade (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).

The government told the Court of International Trade that importer Precision Components' low-carbon steel blanks fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. Filing a reply brief on July 12, the U.S. said Precision conceded that its blanks described in the 2023 scope ruling request are plainly covered by a 2020 ruling similarly finding the blanks to fall under the scope of the order (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in a countervailing duty investigation on ripe olives from Spain. In its decision, the appellate court said the Court of International Trade was wrong to impose a 50% threshold in determining whether demand for a processed agricultural product is "substantially dependent" on its raw upstream iteration for purposes of assigning countervailing duties (see 2405200045). Judges Sharon Prost, William Bryson and Leonard Stark said that the Commerce Department shall receive "considerable discretion" in determining whether such demand is substantially dependent due to the general nature of the terms "substantially dependent" (Asociacion de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1162).

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

A domestic producer of boltless steel shelving units brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on July 11 arguing that the Commerce Department had wrongly refused to use the surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).