The Court of International Trade on July 31 granted exporter Hindalco Industries' voluntary dismissal of its case on the 2022 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from India. Hindalco filed a complaint in the case in January, arguing that the Commerce Department wrongly found to be specific programs by which Hindalco had been provided bauxite mining rights and coal and bauxite by the government of India for less-than-adequate remuneration. Counsel for Hindalco didn't respond to a request for comment (see 2501130074) (Hindalco Industries v. United States, CIT # 24-00234).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 30 granted the government's motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief in a case on whether the Commerce Department had adequate industry support to launch the antidumping duty investigations on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea and Russia. However, the court said the motion is granted "to the limited extent that the United States’s response brief is due no later than" Aug. 4, noting that the reply brief is still due no later than Sept. 3 (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 25-1382).

Two monosodium glutamate (MSG) importers told the Court of International Trade in a July 30 complaint that the Commerce Department unlawfully subjected MSG entries from Malaysia that used Chinese glutamic acid to the antidumping duty order on MSG from China retroactively (CPF Legacy v. United States, CIT # 25-00149).

The U.S. responded July 25 to importer Prysmian Cables and Systems' remaining claims challenging the Commerce Department’s rejection of the importer’s Section 232 requests, saying a number of them had already been covered by the Court of International Trade's dismissal. It also defended Commerce's ability to deny exclusion requests for national security purposes (Prysmian Cables and Systems USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).

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

The Court of International Trade on July 29 signed off on importer Briggs & Stratton's dismissal of its case on CBP's assessment of excess duties, taxes and fees on its engine parts and components (see 2301250071). The importer filed its notice of dismissal last month (see 2506270029). Briggs & Stratton brought the suit to argue that the duties were added due to clerical and technical errors. The case was previously dismissed for lack of prosecution, though the trade court re-added it to the court's docket after the company asked for relief (see 2502040015) Counsel for Briggs & Stratton didn't respond to a request for comment on the reason for dismissal (Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00014).

In a July 25 complaint to the Court of International Trade, Chinese xanthan gum exporter Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) alleged the Commerce Department’s 10th antidumping duty review of its products wrongly assigned it partial adverse facts available for a sales date disagreement (Deosen Biochemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00145).

Defending a motion for reconsideration, the U.S. said again July 23 that fish oil importer BASF Corp.’s products should have been classified as “food preparations” and that the Court of International Trade defined “fish extracts” too broadly. The trade court failed to address several U.S. points raised during litigation, so the standard for reconsideration has been met, it claimed (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

The Court of International Trade on July 29 lifted its statutory injunction on the liquidation of exporter Siderca's entries of oil country tubular goods from Argentina after importers led by Tenaris Bay City asked the court to lift its injunction. Judge Claire Kelly noted that although the importers appealed the trade court's decision sustaining the Commerce Department's dumping determination, the appeal only concerns the agency's initiation of the investigation and the "continued existence" of the antidumping duty order (Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. United States, CIT # 22-00343).

Countervailing duty petitioner U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition on July 25 filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging the Commerce Department's CVD investigation into epoxy resins from South Korea. The six-count complaint challenged, among other things, Commerce's alleged failure to use world price benchmarks in calculating the benefit from the provision of epichlorohydrin, a key epoxy resin input, and the agency's decision not to investigate the provision of certain chemical inputs for less than adequate remuneration (U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers Ad Hoc Coalition v. U.S., CIT # 25-00147).