Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) will appeal its three separate cases filed at the Court of International Trade regarding the sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #'s 22-00349, -00350, -00351).

Importer CVB filed a stipulation of dismissal in its case challenging the Commerce Department's scope decision finding that the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China doesn't cover seven models of wood platform beds imported by Zinus. Most recently in the case, the U.S. argued that CVB didn't have standing to challenge the scope decision because CVB is an importer and can't show that it was injured by the scope ruling (see 2407160052). The government said none of CVB's goods is at issue. It said the importer challenges the determination that another company's entries are outside the scope of the order, but "it has failed to demonstrate what stake it has in this determination." Counsel for CVB didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 24-00036).

A Swiss watchmaker embroiled in a customs dispute with the U.S. since 2018 "failed to provide” evidence that the watches its commercial invoices identified were actually the ones it imported, the government said Aug. 13 in support of its cross-motion for judgment (Ildico v. United States, CIT # 18-00136).

The gunmaker Glock, embroiled in a dispute regarding the valuation of an entry of imported pistol kits, said Aug. 12 that the U.S.’s objections to its discovery request -- and its subsequent defenses of those objections before the trade court -- were inaccurate and could indicate that the government doesn’t understand the law (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

The U.S. said Aug. 12 that the Commerce Department doesn’t have to consider a ministerial error allegation regarding the final results of a review because the error went unnoticed in the preliminary results (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00262).

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

Antidumping duty petitioner Ventura Coastal and respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos traded briefs on the impact and relevance the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the Chevron principle of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).

A domestic glycine producer brought its case to the Court of International Trade to make up for omissions and errors it made in a scope ruling application, the U.S. claimed Aug. 9. It asked the court to reject the producer’s motion for judgment because it had failed to exhaust its arguments during the administrative process (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

In response to attacks from multiple sides, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Aug. 7 to remand the results of its first antidumping duty review on Indonesian mattresses so that it could look into a calculation error alleged by exporters (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00001).

Exporters Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas argued in an Aug. 13 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis is not allowed by the statute in antidumping reviews and is only permissible for AD investigations (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).