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).

The U.S. told the Court of International Trade that Southwest Airlines isn't entitled to keep Customs Passenger Processing Fees fees paid by its customers on canceled tickets. Filing a cross-motion for judgment on Aug. 13, the government argued that the airline's cancellation policy, which offers travel credits that Southwest then stores as profits if they go uncollected, can't usurp the law, which requires Southwest to "collect the fee and remit the fees collected to the Government" (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).

The South Korean government urged the Court of International Trade to not confuse "disparity" with "disproportionality" in assessing the Commerce Department's de facto specificity finding on the Korean government's alleged provision of electricity below cost. Filing a reply brief on Aug. 12 in a case on the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, the Korean government said the fact that a few industries used a large amount of electricity doesn't establish de facto specificity (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

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).

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).

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).

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

The Court of International Trade on Aug. 9 granted importer Blockstream USA Corp.'s bids to dismiss three of its own customs cases on the classification of its cryptocurrency miners. The court previously dismissed one of the cases for failure to prosecute after Blockstream didn't move to extend the time for the case to remain on the customs case management calendar. This dismissal was set aside after the company asked the court to help correct the error (see 2404050029). Counsel for Blockstream didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on why the company moved to dismiss the cases (Blockstream Services USA v. U.S., CIT #s, 22-00101, 23-00018) (Blockstream USA Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00149).

Countervailing duty petitioner The Mosaic Co. and respondent OCP each moved the Court of International Trade for judgment last week in a combined suit on the first review of the CVD order on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco (The Mosaic Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00246).

An exporter and a petitioner each filed an opposition to the Commerce Department’s final results upon remand for an antidumping duty review on Indian-origin steel pipe, in which the department provided a strong defense of adverse facts available as a tool to combat the problem of noncooperative unaffiliated suppliers (see 2407100037) (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).