The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
Opposing Thai tire exporter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations' motion to amend the record, the U.S. and petitioner United Steel, Paper and Forestry each said March 18 that the documents Bridgestone sought to include were untimely and potentially being misrepresented (Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations v. United States, CIT # 24-00263).
The U.S. defended its use of its quarterly cost methodology in calculating exporter Officine Tecnosider's antidumping duty rate in the 2020-21 administrative review of the AD order on steel plate from Italy, arguing that petitioner Nucor Corp.'s claims to the contrary fail to show that it's the "one and only" reasonable outcome. Submitting a brief on March 19 in defense of its remand results, Commerce said it wasn't free to ignore evidence of a link between the respondent's costs and sales prices during the review period (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
No lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade.
Parties originally excluded from an expedited countervailing duty review on Canadian softwood lumber opposed the government's bid to file a supplemental brief to a status report in a dispute on whether the excluded parties can obtain refunds of CVD cash deposits. The originally excluded parties said the U.S. failed to establish good cause for submitting a reply to the status report (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).
German forged steel fluid end products exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen filed a March 17 motion for judgment arguing that, in a review, the Commerce Department had included forged steel products that couldn’t be used in hydraulic pumps in the exporter’s home market sales (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 24-00176).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case following importers Struxtur's and Evolutions Flooring's decision to voluntarily dismiss their appeals (see 2502110055). The case concerned the Commerce Department's use of a country-wide adverse facts available rate in calculating the AD rate for the separate rate respondents in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China. A related appeal will continue to be litigated by importers led by Galleher Corp. on whether the use of AFA punishes the separate rate companies for respondent Sino-Maple's lack of cooperation and leads to an aberrational AD rate (see 2502050023) (Fuson Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1232).
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).