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

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 consolidated nine cases challenging the Commerce Department's scope determination in the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum extrusions from China and nine cases challenging the scope determination in the countervailing duty investigation on the same products. The court also stayed the consolidated cases pending the trade court's first decision in a separate case on the International Trade Commission's injury determination on the products (Dorman Products v. United States, CIT #s 24-00236, -00237).

Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio asked the Court of International Trade to expedite its challenge to CBP's finding that the company makes aluminum extrusions using forced labor, arguing that there's a "very real possibility" the company will have to "cease operations and file for bankruptcy as a result of" the forced labor finding (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 20 allowed patent attorney Andrew Dhuey to appear as amicus curiae to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an antidumping duty and countervailing duty injury determination. CAFC Judge Leonard Stark took up Dhuey on his offer, appointing him "in support" of the trade court's decision (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).

In a reply brief Feb. 18, domestic petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition again argued that a review respondent’s conversion costs calculation should have been based only on its towers’ physical characteristics, not its monthly production quantity (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00070).

The International Trade Commission erred in failing to consider diesel fuel price increases when assessing whether imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, India, Indonesia and Vietnam harmed the U.S. industry, Ecuadorian respondents Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila and Sociedad Nacional De Galapagos argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 18, the pair said the injury finding was unsupported by the record, due to the lack of information about fuel price increases (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT # 25-00029).

Two Ecuadorian exporters challenged the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, arguing, among other things, that the agency erred in finding that certain tax benefits were de facto specific and in applying adverse facts available for specific subsidy programs. Respondent Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila challenges its final 3.57% CVD rate, while respondent Sociedad Nacional De Galapagos (SONGA) challenges its 4.41% CVD rate (Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila v. United States, CIT # 25-00025).

Chinese exporters led by Giti Tire Global Trading repeated Feb. 17 their claim that the Commerce Department should have taken distance into account when constructing boat freight costs in an antidumping duty review (see 2411050046), saying the government was misinterpreting the financial information provided by a surrogate (Giti Tire Global Trading v. U.S., CIT #24-00083).

The Commerce Department continued to find on remand at the Court of International Trade that respondent Louis Dreyfus Co. Sucos S.A. and an unnamed supplier, dubbed "Supplier A," are not affiliated, nor are they partners. The agency said it's important to "distinguish 'exclusivity' from 'reliance'" in conducting affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't "perfectly capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests" (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).

The Commerce Department's finding that the Vietnamese traded-goods sector was the "predominant user" of the alleged undervaluation of the Vietnamese dong is not in line with the "statutory requirements," exporter Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. argued in a Feb. 14 brief at the Court of International Trade (Kumho Tire (Vietnam) Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00397).