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).
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).