The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed the deadline for court-appointed amicus curiae Andrew Dhuey to submit his amicus brief in a case on the International Trade Commission's treatment of business proprietary information amid a spat over whether Dhuey can access all confidential filings in the appeal's docket. Dhuey submitted a motion seeking access to all confidential information in the case, which the government said it will oppose (In Re United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1566).

The U.S. and Indian frozen shrimp exporter Megaa Moda supported March 7 the Commerce Department’s results on remand of an antidumping duty administrative review (see 2411270055). Finding that Megaa Moda knew certain of its home market sales would be exported required affirmative evidence that the record lacked, they said (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).

Food supplement exporter BASF filed March 17 in opposition to the U.S.’s cross-motion for judgment in its case. It disagreed with the government’s claim that its products didn’t fit the requirements of BASF’s preferred Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 12-00422).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week granted anti-forced labor group International Rights Advocates' motion to remand its suit against three major chocolate makers to the D.C. Superior Court (International Rights Advocates v. United States, D.D.C. # 24-00894).

Dutch mushroom exporter Prochamp said March 14 that Germany had been the right third-country comparison market in an antidumping duty investigation of its products, echoing the argument raised by the U.S. (see 2503030073) (Giorgio Foods v. United States, CIT # 23-00133).

A federal court in the District of Columbia last week dismissed a suit against U.S. personal care product giant Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Ansell Healthcare Products, which alleged that the companies knowingly benefited from taking part in a venture that engaged in forced labor. Judge Carl Michols held that Kimberly-Clark and Ansell didn't take part in a venture and didn't have the "requisite knowledge" to establish liability under the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act (Mohammed Forhad Mia, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark, et al., D.D.C. # 1:22-02353).

The Court of International Trade on March 13 severed exporter Fontaine's case against the expedited countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada from the consolidated action on the review. Judge Mark Barnett sustained the review "with respect to Fontaine," ordering that the relevant entries be liquidated in line with the court's decision. In January, Barnett sustained the Commerce Department's use of Fontaine's FY 2015 tax returns to calculate the amount of the tax benefits received by the company (see 2501290040). The remaining issues in the case are unrelated to Fontaine (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

Exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret will appeal a recent decision at the Court of International Trade, which held that the Commerce Department reasonably used Kaptan's invoice date as the date of sale in the 2021-22 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey (see 2501150021). In the decision, the court also upheld Commerce's differences-in-merchandise adjustment, finding that the adjustment wasn't distortive in the way that it controlled for inflation (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

Chinese drone maker DJI urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Pentagon to provide its counsel with classified information in the company's suit against its designation as a Chinese military company. DJI argued that the information is "undoubtedly" relevant since DOD used it as the basis for DJI's designation, and that disclosure is needed because the court can't evaluate the designation without access to the "very information on which that designation is based" (SZ DJI Technology Co. v. U.S. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-02970).

Importer Houston Shutters defended its Section 1581(i) case at the Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department's failure to open a changed circumstances review of antidumping and countervailing duty determinations on wood moldings and millwork products from China. Filing a reply brief on March 12, Houston Shutters said jurisdiction doesn't require it to challenge Commerce's investigations, adding that Commerce itself uses the reviews to consider information that wasn't present during the investigation (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193).