Importer Worldwide Distribution dropped its bid to participate in an appeal of an antidumping duty review after failing to file a notice of appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had asked the company whether it sought to take part in the case as an appellant, and, if so, what the court's jurisdiction is over such an appeal (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).

A plaintiff opposed Sept. 13 a CBP redetermination upon remand that again found three importers evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese plywood by transshipping the product through Cambodia (see 2405300058), again arguing the agency’s decision lacked substantial evidence (American Pacific Plywood v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03914).

The U.S. on Sept. 13 defended the Commerce Department's remand determination that the Korean government's full allotment of carbon emissions credits to exporter Hyundai Steel Co. is de jure specific. The government said Hyundai's claims that the Court of International Trade already rejected Commerce's reasoning and that the agency ignored the court's questions in the remand were unconvincing (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00029) (Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00032).

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

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 13 dismissed a suit from three U.S.-based honey producers related to the alleged import of "fake" honey. Judge Daniel Calabretta held that the honey producers, led by Henry's Bullfrog Bees, failed to include sufficiently specific factual allegations to support their claims that the defendants -- honey importers and distributors -- engaged in fraud (Henry's Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading, E.D. Cal. # 2:21-00582).

The U.S. and surety company Aegis Security Insurance Co. on Sept. 13 asked the Court of International Trade to use the items produced in discovery in a separate case involving both parties (U.S. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., CIT # 22-00327).

An Indian exporter of off-road tires did receive the benefit of import duty exemptions from the Indian government, a petitioner argued in the Court of International Trade on Sept. 9 (Titan Tire Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00233).

Countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued on Sept. 9 that the Commerce Department erred in reconsidering the alleged benefit conferred by debt-to-equity swap element of exporter KG Dongbu's debt restructuring program. Nucor said Commerce "has the inherent authority to reconsider its prior determinations, whether or not that reconsideration is based on specific types of new evidence on the record," making the decision to countervail the debt-to-equity swaps lawful, despite the agency having come to different conclusions in the past (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).

Antidumping duty petitioner Daikin America on Sept. 9 opposed the Commerce Department's remand results finding it wasn't feasible for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals to report its movement expenses on a transaction-specific basis. Daikin said the agency wrongfully said Gujarat's grade-based allocation was as specific as it could be and didn't cause "inaccuracies and distortions" (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 12 dismissed a customs penalty suit against Greenlight Organic and its owner Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh after the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. The parties told the court a settlement was reached in the case, which was filed in 2017 to address an alleged misclassification scheme carried out by the defendants (see 2409090056) (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).