A plaintiff and glycine importer filed a brief June 13 at the Court of International Trade supporting inclusion into its case’s record a prior August 2033 scope ruling application, made by the plaintiff and denied by the Commerce Department, that the plaintiff said provided important context for its overall case (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 14 granted importer Diamond Tools Technology's voluntary dismissal of its Enforce and Protect Act appeal. The company took to the appellate court after it won its initial challenge to CBP's finding that it evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese diamond sawblades but lost its application for attorney's fees (see 2307310021) (Diamond Tools Technology v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1882).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 13 order sustained the Commerce Department's final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia. Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until June 20 to review the decision. AD petitioner U.S. Steel Corp. brought the case to contest Commerce's finding that exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) didn't reimburse its U.S. affiliate for AD on the relevant imports (see 2206080032) (U.S. Steel v. U.S., CIT # 21-00528).

The Court of International Trade in a confidential decision June 13 sustained CBP's negative evasion finding regarding Dominican company Kingtom Aluminio. Enforce and Protect Act petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee brought suit, arguing that CBP's Office of Regulations and Rulings wrongly overturned an evasion finding initially made by CBP's Trade Remedy and Law Enforcement Directorate (see 2309220032). The petitioner claimed that TRLED was right to use adverse inferences against Kingtom after the company interfered with CBP's ability to verify information submitted by the company. The court hasn't given any indication of when it will make the decision public (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. U.S., CIT # 22-00236).

Two Thai exporters said in a motion for judgment June 13 that the Commerce Department wrongly determined they were circumventing an antidumping duty order on solar panels from China -- even though between three and four of the five relevant factors it analyzed weighed against a circumvention finding (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).

The Court of International Trade on June 12 granted two companies' motions for voluntary dismissal in an antidumping and countervailing duty injury case and a customs case. One case, brought by exporter Adisseo Espana, contested the International Trade Commission's final determination finding that methionine from Spain and Japan injured the U.S. industry. The other, brought by importer AVA Industries, contested CBP's classification of multimedia players without screens. Neither company commented on the reasons for the dismissals (Adisseo Espana v. United States, CIT # 21-00562) (AVA Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 20-00123).

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

Replying to an aircraft parts importer’s motion for judgment (see 2403110059) in a case that began in 2017, the government said that the importer's products are raw materials, not parts (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

A Spanish aluminum exporter argued June 11 that the Commerce Department is unlawfully restricting its statutory requirement to consider levels of trade when calculating normal value by requiring there be “substantial differences,” rather than plain “differences,” in those levels to trigger that analysis (Compania Valencia De Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00259).

Importer Diamond Tools Technology voluntarily dismissed its appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act case on diamond sawblades at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The importer took to the appellate court after its application for attorney's fees was rejected by the Court of International Trade (see 2307310021) (Diamond Tools Technology v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1882).