Japan-based Nippon Steel Corp. and U.S. Steel Corp. asked a federal court Jan. 6 to set aside the Biden administration’s “illegal and improper” decision to block Nippon Steel’s acquisition of the American firm. Their lawsuit also urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to order the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. to conduct a new review of the proposed $14.9 billion transaction.

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

Parties filed a stipulated judgment Jan. 3 for a 2012 case regarding imported light-sensitive materials used in photography (Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America v. United States, CIT # 12-00261).

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo confirms that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must use its own judgment rather than defer to the Commerce Department in reviewing the agency's multifactor test for assessing independence from de facto Chinese government control of export functions, exporter Pirelli Tyre Co. argued (Pirelli Tyre Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2266).

After a remand, the Commerce Department continued to find the downstream products of Mexican pipe exporter Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. and auto-parts manufacturer Tecnicas de Fluidos S.A. de C.V. (TEFLU) were covered by an antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00091).

A number of consolidated plaintiffs, who referred to themselves as “ST&R,” said Jan. 2 the U.S. “appear[ed] to concede” that the Commerce Department lacked adequate information when it determined multiple Vietnamese plywood exporters had been circumventing an antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood from China (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

In comments Dec. 16, the trade group Catfish Farmers of America opposed the Commerce Department’s remand results regarding its antidumping duty review on Vietnamese frozen fish fillets (see 2410220042) after the department refused to deviate from its previous surrogate decisions (Catfish Farmers of America, et al. v. United States, CIT # 22-00125).

Court of International Trade Judge Claire Kelly on Jan. 2 granted a motion to consolidate two cases challenging the Commerce Department’s refusal to grant several Chinese pea protein exporters separate rates in an antidumping duty investigation (Yantai Oriental Protein Tech Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00181, -00179).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 31 denied Canadian lumber exporter J.D. Irving's bid for a full court rehearing of a three-judge panel's rejection of the company's attempt to challenge the denial of an antidumping duty cash deposit rate under Section 1581(i) (J.D. Irving v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1652).

The U.S. agreed to liquidate importer Tingley Rubber Corp.'s latex rubber boot savers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6401.99.30, dutiable at 25%, as opposed to subheading 6401.92.90, dutiable at 37.5%, according to a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade (Tingley Rubber Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03711).