Several importers appealed for relief April 22 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saying in their opening brief that the International Trade Commission wrongly reached an affirmative critical circumstances determination regarding their Vietnamese honey imports and the Court of International Trade erroneously upheld it (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).

Antidumping petitioner SSAB Enterprises argued that the Commerce Department was justified in using partial adverse facts available against respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl due to the company's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. While Salzgitter said it couldn't submit certain requested information because one of its affiliated resellers, Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel, didn't keep that information, SSAB said that "Salzgitter cannot rely on" Salzgitter Mannesmann's "sloppy recordkeeping as a valid excuse to justify its failure to provide Commerce with the requested manufacturer information" (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

Twenty-one U.S. citizens who were harmed -- and the estate of one who was killed -- in 2006 Hezbollah rocket attacks may bring the new owners of one of the terrorist group’s alleged major funders to court in New York, the state’s highest court certified April 18.

The Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded an administrative review, falsely determining that an exporter hadn't made any U.S. sales during the period being examined, the exporter said in April 19 motion for judgment (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).

The United States asked for 14 more days to file its reply brief in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the validity of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases. The government said it needs more time to prepare its draft brief and receive input from DOJ "supervisory counsel" and Commerce attorneys (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 19 partially dismissed a lawsuit from sanctioned individuals Mir Rahman Rahmani and Hafi Ajmal Rahmani and over two dozen of their companies challenging their sanctions listing for their alleged role in a corruption scheme that swiped millions of dollars from U.S. contracts in Afghanistan (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).

A domestic petitioner April 19 supported the U.S. in a case involving an antidumping duty investigation on freight rail couplers, saying that the case’s plaintiff, an exporter, had misunderstood the rules of statutory interpretation. That exporter has argued that the Commerce Department is barred from beginning new investigations fewer than two years before a previous one was completed (see 2404080049), pointing to statutory language governing changed circumstances reviews that appears to apply broadly (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00161).

Importer Saramax dismissed three customs cases it brought in 2000, 2003 and 2004 to contest the classification of its women's upper body garments. The company sought classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6212.90.00, dutiable at 6.8%, while CBP classified the goods under HTS subheading 6109.10.00, dutiable at 18.8% (Saramax v. United States, CIT # 00-00539, 03-00897, 04-00395).

The Court of International Trade again remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, in an April 19 confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until April 26 to review the confidential information in the opinion. Barnett said Commerce shall "reconsider or further explain" its decision not to investigate the off-peak sale of electricity allegedly for less than adequate remuneration.

U.S. steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs filed stipulations of dismissal in two suits challenging the International Trade Commission's negative injury findings in the five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil and the AD/CVD orders on hot-rolled steel from Brazil. The company had filed its complaint in both cases, arguing against the ITC's decision not to cumluate imports from Brazil with goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K.