Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co., Ltd. v. United States
U.S. Court of International Trade · U.S. Court of International Trade
Conduct
Here the plaintiff's brief asserted, without citing any evidence, that Commerce made factual findings in a Canadian antidumping investigation.
Consequence
Order to substantiate within 14 days or show cause under USCIT Rule 11(b)(3), with declarations on who or what, including AI, wrote the statements.
Lesson
Here the court treated unsupported factual assertions about an agency proceeding, not just fake case law, as possible hallucinations.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 24-00221-MMB, Order to Show Cause (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 22, 2026) (Baker, J.), ECF No. 58
- Filing date
- September 22, 2026
Summary
In a challenge to the first administrative review of an antidumping order on mobile access equipment from China, plaintiff Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co., Ltd., represented by Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, moved for judgment on the agency record. Its corrected opening brief (ECF 52) asserted that the de-dollarization of the Turkish economy "was recognized by Commerce in the Canadian AD investigation on Turkish rebar" and that the record "does not contain any information contradicting Commerce's factual findings in the Canadian investigation." The court found that neither statement cites any evidence, record or otherwise, to support it, that the plaintiff did not explain what role the U.S. Department of Commerce played in a Canadian government proceeding or what "factual findings" it made there, and that the case brief cited for the first assertion "is not evidence, and the case brief itself makes no mention of any involvement by Commerce." The court then stated that the statements "are so outlandish as to appear to be the product of hallucination, either by a human being or by artificial intelligence." The issue concerns factual assertions about an agency proceeding, not fabricated case law.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the court says the statements are "so outlandish as to appear to be the product of hallucination, either by a human being or by artificial intelligence" and, if the plaintiff cannot substantiate them, requires declarations on who "or what, including artificial intelligence or other software program" wrote them; no finding of AI use)
- Amount or terms:
- None imposed as of the September 22, 2026 order; plaintiff to substantiate within 14 days or show cause under USCIT Rule 11(b)(3)
What is the current procedural posture?
Judge M. Miller Baker ordered the plaintiff, within 14 days, to file a statement substantiating the assertions that Commerce participated, and made factual findings, in the Canadian investigation, by citing evidence and explaining the U.S. agency's role. If it cannot, it "must show cause why the court should not sanction it and/or counsel for violating USCIT Rule 11(b)(3)," and "must also submit declarations explaining who (or what, including artificial intelligence or other software program) participated in writing and editing the brief, including who (or what) specifically authored the statements quoted above." The order specifies that this includes employees of the plaintiff and of its counsel's firm. The next day, in Slip Op. 26-119, which decided Dingli's case together with the companion case Ct. No. 24-00219, the court sustained Commerce's determination, describing the Canadian argument as one Dingli "[b]izarrely" injected and noting that "[i]t is unclear what 'findings' the company believes the Department made as part of a foreign government's investigation." The slip opinion does not mention the show-cause order.
Why does Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co., Ltd. v. United States matter for law firms using AI?
The Dingli order stands out because the suspected hallucination is factual rather than doctrinal. No case was invented. The brief instead attributed findings to the U.S. Department of Commerce in a proceeding run by the Canadian government, and cited nothing but its own case brief. The court’s response was to ask for proof first: the plaintiff was given 14 days to substantiate the assertions with evidence, and only if it could not would it have to show cause under USCIT Rule 11(b)(3).
The court left the source open, calling the statements “so outlandish as to appear to be the product of hallucination, either by a human being or by artificial intelligence.” Its disclosure directive, which applies if the plaintiff cannot substantiate the statements, is correspondingly broad: declarations explaining “who (or what, including artificial intelligence or other software program) participated in writing and editing the brief,” expressly including employees of both the client and the law firm.
The merits decision issued the next day in Slip Op. 26-119 sustained Commerce’s determination and addressed the Canadian argument briefly, noting that “Dingli ignores the agency’s observation that the Canadian government applied its own law, not U.S. antidumping law, and compiled its own record.” The show-cause directive remained separate. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court asked, conditionally, for a drafting history covering both people and software, at the client and at the firm, for two sentences in a brief.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify factual assertions about agency proceedings against the record before filing. Here the court found that neither statement cited any evidence, in the record or otherwise, that Commerce took part in the Canadian investigation.
- Document who drafted and edited each section of a brief, including any AI or software. Here the court required, if the plaintiff could not substantiate the statements, declarations covering the client's and the law firm's employees and any AI program involved.
- Review record citations to confirm they support the assertion. Here the only cited source was a case brief that the court said is not evidence and does not mention Commerce.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is not a finding: the order says the statements appear to be the product of hallucination 'either by a human being or by artificial intelligence' and asks who or what wrote them.
- Whether the plaintiff substantiated the assertions or responded to the show-cause directive, and any resulting sanction, had not been located as of 2026-09-30.