Exporter Oman Fasteners on Oct. 18 urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reschedule oral argument in its antidumping duty appeal that is currently set for Nov. 7. Counsel for the exporter said an "unforeseeable scheduling conflict arose that will make it exceedingly difficult" for the company to argue the case on that date (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).

Exporter Shelter Forest International Acquisition filed a reply brief at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 15, arguing that the U.S. and petitioner Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood failed to justify the Commerce Department's rejection of the company's new factual information in a circumvention proceeding on Vietnamese hardwood plywood. Shelter Forest said both the government and the petitioner didn't address "important past judicial precedent" (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00144)

Importer Phoenix Metal Co. on Oct. 16 voluntarily dismissed its appeal of an Enforce and Protect Act proceeding at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court of International Trade sustained CBP's finding that the company evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cast iron soil pipe from China by transshipping the pipe through Cambodia (see 2406100027). The trade court rejected Phoenix's due process claims, which faulted CBP for failing to notify the company that it was subject to an interim EAPA investigation, finding that Phoenix failed to allege that it suffered specific-enough harm by being subject to the interim measures without adequate notice. Counsel for Phoenix declined to comment on the decision to drop the appeal (Phoenix Metal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00048).

U.S. importer Houston Shutters on Oct. 16 told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department improperly declined to open a changed circumstances review to exclude wood shutter components from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood moldings and millwork products from China. Filing a complaint at the trade court, Houston Shutters said Commerce bucked its statutory mandate that the agency "shall conduct a review" (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193)

A domestic trade group for catfish farmers brought a motion for judgment Oct. 15 before the Court of International Trade, arguing that the Commerce Department should have at least applied partial adverse facts available to a mandatory respondent in its 2020-21 review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 24-00082).

The U.S. will pay over $3 million in duty refunds with interest to importer Kiswire related to duty payments the company paid on its wire rod entries from South Korea. Filing a stipulated judgment with the Court of International Trade on Oct. 16, Kiswire and the government agreed to settle Kiswire's challenge against the antidumping duties assessed on its imports (Kiswire v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00181).

A German exporter of forged steel fluid end blocks brought a complaint Oct. 16 to the Court of International Trade arguing that the Commerce Department, in a review of the antidumping duty order on its products, illegally expanded the scope of the AD order to include forged steel products that weren’t fluid end blocks (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 24-00176).

The Commerce Department improperly found that its off-grid solar charging modules didn't qualify for two exclusions to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar cells from China, U.S. importer GameChange Solar Corp. argued Oct. 15. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade, GameChange said the agency illegally "disregarded, discounted, and mischaracterized contradictory information on the record including photographs submitted" by the importer (GameChange Solar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00174).

After the Court of International Trade remanded the 323.12% adverse facts available antidumping duty rate received by an Indian quartz countertop exporter that missed a 10 a.m. deadline by five hours during the COVID-19 pandemic (see 2405290065), all parties reached a settlement would see the exporter get a new rate of 3.58% (Cambria Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00007).

In oral arguments Oct. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that the plaintiff challenging an Enforce and Protect Act evasion finding whose entries have all already been liquidated was likely not going to succeed in reversing the dismissal of its case by the Court of International Trade (see 2208180045) (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).