German paper exporter Koehler asked the Court of International Trade on Aug. 30 to certify for immediate appeal its decision allowing service on the company via its U.S. counsel. Koehler said the issue of service in the case is "appropriate for prompt review" by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since the issue is a novel one for both CIT and CAFC and "entirely separate from the underlying merits of the case" (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch, CIT # 24-00014).
Court of International Trade activity
The Commerce Department made no changes to its final results of the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, which was on remand at the Court of International Trade after the court sent back three elements of the review (see 2405090045). The court sent back Commerce's valuation of solar glass using Romanian import prices, valuation of air freight using Freightos data and use of partial adverse facts available against exporter Risen Energy Co. (Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00219).
South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel Co. opposed the Commerce Department's finding on remand that the Korean government's full allocation of carbon emission permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) during the 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea was de facto specific. On remand, Commerce switched from a de jure to a de facto specificity finding (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).
Importer Precision Components filed a reply brief on Aug. 30 at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping scope case, telling the court that the Commerce Department characterized a "raw material as a component and thus impermissibly brought" the materials within the scope of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China. The record clearly says "the materials at issue are not bearing components or parts of bearings and could not be used in the production of bearings absent significant physical processes performed on the raw materials" (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 28 denied both the government's and importer HyAxiom's motions for judgment in a customs classification case on PC50 supermodules, which are a part of a stationary hydrogen fuel cell generator known as the PureCell Model 400. Judge Timothy Stanceu said a factual determination is needed on whether the PC50's "principal function" is gas generation.
The U.S. told the Court of International Trade that its inadvertent liquidation of entries subject to an injunction from the court was the result of "human errors." Submitting information requested by the court in response to the injunction violation, the government said its controls to ensure compliance with the court's injunctions weren't followed (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00025).
Luggage importer Samsonite filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 29 to contest CBP's alleged failure to apply Section 301 exclusions granted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to its baggage entries (Samsonite v. United States, CIT # 24-00031).
The U.S. and a seller of a chemical product used in the making of plastic asked the Court of International Trade to grant a consent motion to reopen discovery until Nov. 4, saying all expert reports, if any, were to be filed by then (Lanxess Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00073).
A defendant-intervenor Korean exporter of superabsorbent polymers opposed the Commerce Department’s determination (see 2406170034), on remand, that would raise its antidumping margin from 17.64% to 26.05% (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. United States, CIT # 23-00010).
Exporter Yingli Energy (China) Co. filed a complaint on Aug. 28 at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's denial of its separate rate application in the 10th review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China, claiming that it showed its independence from Chinese state control (Yingli Energy (China) Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00131).