In its opposition to a reconsideration request in a vehicle sidebar classification case, the U.S. “misleads” the court by claiming that exporter Keystone Automotives was attempting to relitigate its position. Actually, the exporter said, its request is “based on the standard of review of the tariff exclusion” Keystone had relied on in its initial arguments (Keystone Automotive Operations v. U.S., CIT # 21-00215).

Surety firm Aegis Security pushed back again (see 2410220026) on the U.S. lawsuit to recover unpaid duties from 2002. The long delay between liquidation and request for payment -- after CBP “likely lost the entry papers for multiple years” -- meant the U.S. could no longer reasonably expect anything from Aegis, it said (United States v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

The Pentagon's response to Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology's claims against its designation as a Chinese military company shows that the department "has no evidence" and "made no finding" that the company is "in any way connected to the Chinese military," Hesai said in a brief at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Hesai Technology Co. v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-01381).

The following new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Jan. 30 in a case on the 2016-17 review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from China. In its decision, CAFC said the Commerce Department failed to provide an "adequate explanation" regarding its treatment of overhead costs in coming up with the surrogate financial ratio (see 2412090028) (Risen Energy Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1550).

The U.S. and a defendant-intervenor each filed a response Jan. 28 to Chinese steel rack exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing, which is challenging the denial of a separate rate in an antidumping duty review due to a missed deadline. The defending parties said Dongsheng failed to show extraordinary circumstances justified its error (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00085).

Patent attorney Andrew Dhuey offered to appear as amicus curiae at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 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 AD/CVD injury determination. Dhuey, who is on the trade court's roster of pro bono counsel, said he would like to be appointed by CAFC to defend Vaden's decision, "arguing on behalf of the public interest in judicial transparency" (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

Petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire voluntarily dismissed its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an antidumping duty proceeding in light of the appellate court's decision in a related case rejecting the use of total adverse facts available against exporter Oman Fasteners (see 2501070084). In all, two appeals were filed -- one challenging the Court of International Trade's injunction on the collection of cash deposits at the AFA rate and another on the underlying AD proceeding itself. With the rejection of the AFA rate in the appeal on the injunction, Mid Continent dropped its separate appeal (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1350).

Petitioner Deer Park Glycine this week dropped its case at the Court of International Trade on the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on glycine from India. The company has brought a host of other cases to the trade court regarding the antidumping duty and countervailing duty measures on glycine, including a 1581(i) action against the Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling application from the petitioner (see 2501070087). Counsel for Deer Park declined to comment (Deer Park Glycine v. United States, CIT # 24-00268).

Exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container dropped its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand, according to a Jan. 29 notice filed at the court. Sahamitr filed its opening brief in the case last month, arguing that the Commerce Department improperly used a period of review-wide allocation methodology for the company's expenses (see 2412030054). The respondent argued that it followed Commerce's instructions throughout the review only for the agency to find that its reporting was "distortive." Counsel for Sahamitr didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).