A petitioner submitted its final brief March 25 opposing the Commerce Department’s continued use of India as a surrogate for Vietnam in its review of an antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets. It argued that Commerce was mixing up the definitions of “same” and “comparable” in its surrogate selection process (Catfish Farmers of America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00380).

The Commerce Department doesn't consider a product's end-use while making scope rulings unless required to by the relevant antidumping or countervailing duty order, the government said March 26 as it opposed summary judgment in a scope ruling case regarding edge-glued boards from China (Hardware Resources v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).

The U.S. filed a cross-motion for summary judgment March 25 in a case contesting CBP’s assessment of antidumping duties on an importer’s entries of a product that had been exempted from an AD order (see 2401080040). In the cross-motion, the government said that the liquidation had gone ahead because the importer hadn't filed the proper entry documentation (Kiswire Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. #22-00181).

Responding to opposition to class certification by the chocolate company Nestle USA, a plaintiff said March 22 she never would have purchased Nestle’s products if the company’s packaging hadn’t misrepresented them as sustainably and ethically sourced (Falcone v. Nestle USA, S.D. Cal. # 19-00723).

An importer said in a March 27 complaint that the Commerce Department shouldn't have found that its garlic cloves from China that are boiled, then frozen were subject to an antidumping duty order on fresh garlic (Export Packers Company Limited v. U.S., CIT # 24-00061).

The Court of International Trade on March 26 ordered importer Lutron Electronics Co. to submit a supplemental brief further explaining its demand for redacted information in CBP's internal documents as part of a customs suit on the company's window shade machines. Judge Richard Eaton said Lutron must reconcile its motion to compel the documents with the holdings from Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., a 2010 U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision (Lutron Electronics Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00264).

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

The Court of International Trade in a March 25 confidential order granted motions to treat submissions from the U.S. and Chinese exporter Ninestar as highly sensitive documents in Ninestar's case contesting its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The submissions pertained to the exporter's motion to unseal and unredact the record, which argued that the company needs access to the information in the proceeding to adequately defend itself (see 2403220035) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

A Turkish hot-rolled steel exporter March 18 defended its appeal over the currency that “controls” its products’ pricing against opposition by the U.S. and domestic petitioners, saying the petitioners had done their math wrong (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).

A petitioner replied March 18 to opposition to its appeal of a Court of International Trade decision that an importer’s plastic shelf dividers weren't covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on raw flexible magnets from China (see 2309260049). It said that the plain text of the orders didn't exclude “functionally inflexible” magnets and that the dividers couldn't be “rigid” because they were “capable of being bent” (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1164).