The Court of International Trade in a confidential March 11 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final results of the sixth review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Richard Eaton said he intends to issue a public version of the opinion "in the near future," giving parties until March 18 to review the confidential information in the matter (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00144).

The Court of International Trade released its questions ahead of March 19 oral arguments in a case on the 2019-21 review of the antidumping duty order on Indian quartz countertops. Judge Mark Barnett asked a host of questions pertaining to the Commerce Department's filing deadlines (Cambria Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00007).

Honeywell, an importer of chordal, radial and web brake segments used in aircraft wheel and brake assemblies, said in a March 5 motion for judgment that its goods were classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8803 rather than heading 6307, as CBP ruled (Honeywell International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 17-00256).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. will appeal a January Court of International Trade decision upholding the International Trade Commission's affirmative injury finding on mattresses from a host of countries. The government will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where it likely will be consolidated with exporter CVB's appeal of the same decision (see 2402160027). In its decision, the trade court found errors in the ITC's assessment of whether the market industry is segmented, but it still sustained the affirmative injury finding due to the "harmless error" principle (see 2312200070) (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 21-00288).

An exporter says a government brief failed to address its argument that the Commerce Department had found in a review that the exporter experienced large enough swings in production costs to call for a quarterly analysis, then went on to determine it had used differential pricing with the Cohen's d test anyway (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).

Several antidumping duty petitioners said in a March 7 complaint they will be contesting the Commerce Department’s refusal to combine a mandatory respondent with an affiliate for a 2021-2022 administrative review of an AD order on carbon and steel alloy from Italy. The department had said applications submitted by the petitioners included untimely information by citing prior agency memos not raised earlier in the proceeding (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).

U.S. importer CVB filed a complaint March 8 at the Court of International Trade claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly excluded importer Zinus' metal and wood platform beds from the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 24-00036).

A petitioner in antidumping and countervailing duty cases on chassis from China that later began to import vehicle chassis from Vietnam said the Commerce Department was misapplying the scope of its orders on Chinese chassis from China that it itself had requested (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

Exporters Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. and Heze Huayi Chemical Co. filed a complaint on March 6 at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's consideration of Romania as a surrogate country in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00026).