Responding to a second remand order by the Court of International Trade, the Commerce Department again chose to calculate review respondent Officine Technosider’s costs quarterly, rather than annually. It said its decision made sense despite the “unique situation” in which Commerce had access to only one quarter of Officine’s U.S. sales data (Officine Tecnosider SRL v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00001).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The United States on Jan. 13 joined plaintiff Elysium Tile in supporting the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand. Elysium said in its own comments that it was satisfied with Commerce’s new report of an ex parte meeting held with its competitor during a scope ruling proceeding (see 2412030060) (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).

A food supplement producer’s products are dietary supplements, not food dyes or additives, the U.S. said Jan. 10 in a cross-motion for summary judgment filed in a case dating back to 2012 (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).

Petitioner The Mosaic Company brought two separate complaints to the Court of International Trade Jan. 13 contesting parts of the Commerce Department’s second countervailing duty review on Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer, respectively (The Mosaic Company v. United States, CIT #s 24-00229, -230).

The Pentagon defended its decision to designate Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology as a Chinese military company, filing a cross-motion for judgment in Hesai's case against its designation at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (see 2412110023). DOD said substantial evidence backs its finding that Hesai is a "military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base," arguing that Hesai failed to appreciate that the "combined weight" of all the evidence supports the designation (Hesai Technology Co. v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-01381).

The Commerce Department erred in using adverse facts available related to exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s alleged receipt of benefits from China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, Ancientree argued in a Jan. 13 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Ancientree said it demonstrated that neither it nor its U.S. customers used the EBCP (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).

Various exporters led by Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. challenged the Commerce Department's antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on aluminum foil from China at the Court of International Trade (Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00231) (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00228).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Nebraska resident Byungmin Chae will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit his second lawsuit challenging his results of the April 2018 customs broker license exam, he said in a notice of appeal. The Court of International Trade dismissed the suit after finding that it was precluded by Chae's first case challenging the test (see 2411130013). Chae is seeking credit for one question on the exam to cross the threshold of 75% correct in order to qualify as a customs broker (Byungmin Chae v. United States, CIT # 24-00086).