Plaintiffs in a case over the fifth administrative review of the countervailing duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells from China were granted a consent motion for a statutory injunction, enjoining liquidation on their solar cell entries on July 30. Prior injunctions held up the liquidation of the entries, but they have come to pass, prompting the need for the new injunction. The companies whose entries are now suspended are Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co. and Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co (Canadian Solar Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #19-00187).

Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi's argument that an “extraordinary circumstance” existed, precluding the timely filing of a questionnaire response in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, is not backed by substantial evidence, the Justice Department said in two July 27 reply briefs. By Celik's counsel's own admission, an oversight in the time difference for the filing deadline resulted in the untimely submission, not counsel's emergency medical procedure, DOJ said (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00045, #21-00050).

The U.S. is seeking more than $18 million from importer Crown Cork & Seal in a July 28 complaint filed in the Court of International Trade alleging that the company fraudulently misclassified its metal lid imports to skirt a 2.6% duty rate. The goods -- metal lids for food, beverage, household and consumer products -- are properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8309.90.0000 and are dutiable at that 2.6% rate, the Department of Justice said. Instead, CCS attempted to classify its metal lid imports from Europe between 2004 and 2009 under HTS subheading 7326.90.1000, which has duty-free treatment (The United States v. Crown Cork & Seal, USA, Inc. et al., CIT #21-361).

A request from a group of four Chinese steel companies to dismiss a case in which the U.S. government alleged the group stole trade secrets was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on July 26. The group, comprising Pangang Group Company (PGC) and three of its subsidiaries, is accused of stealing DuPont trade secrets for the production of titanium dioxide in violation of the Economic Espionage Act. In their motion to dismiss, the group claimed immunity from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), arguing that the group is an "instrumentality" of the Chinese government.

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

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

Defendant-intervenors and antidumping case petitioners, led by Catfish Farmers of America, filed comments to remand results in the Court of International Trade on July 28 in a case over an antidumping review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Having already submitted comments on the remand (see 2107160018), the catfish farmers added final comments, arguing that Commerce's continued reliance on total adverse facts available is properly supported by findings "already affirmed by the court," and that Commerce fully addressed the issues remanded by the court despite no longer relying on them (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

A Court of International Trade case seeking Section 301 tariff exclusions for frozen tillapia fillets from China should be stayed until litigation is completed in the massive Section 301 litigation, the Department of Justice said in a July 26 motion to stay. The case, brought by Global Food Trading Corp., featured two protests on CBP's handling of the entries: one seeking reclassification of the fillets under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 0304.61.00 and another seeking the Section 301 exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.43. CBP approved the first protest but denied the second. DOJ now requests a stay of litigation over the second protest until a decision is reached and all appeals are concluded in the broader Section 301 challenge involving over 3,500 separate complaints. "It would be an inefficient use of the parties’ and the Court’s resources to litigate the defenses to the Second Cause of Action now, when the merits underlying plaintiff’s claim are being litigated in a separate proceeding, and have not yet come to finality," the motion said (Global Food Trading Corp. v. United States, CIT #21-00263).

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

The Commerce Department sought a voluntary remand in another Court of International Trade case over Section 232 tariff exclusion denials, on July 26, offering a remand schedule of four tranches, with the fourth to be submitted 325 days after a potential remand order. The case was brought by California Steel Industries, which challenged 193 exclusion request denials from Commerce and then offered the four-tiered remand schedule to address logistics concerns (California Steel Industries, Inc. v. United States, CIT #21-00015). The voluntary remand motion is one of many offered by Commerce which, following the JSW Steel, Inc. v. United States CIT decision, has been remanding other Section 232 exclusion request challenges (see 2107230038). Asked if it's the agency's policy to issue blanket rejections of the exclusion requests and then seek voluntary remands in CIT cases, a Commerce spokesperson said, "The Commerce Department does not comment on matters currently in litigation. The Bureau of Industry and Security reviews each exclusion request on a case-by-case basis."