A citric acid exporter said Feb. 9 that the Commerce Department had been wrong to refuse to do a quarterly analysis of the exporter’s costs even though it had faced large cost fluctuations due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Citribel N.V. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).

Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden on Feb. 12 recused himself from a pair of cases in which Nicholas Phillips, associate at Schagrin Associates, appeared for one of the parties after he was working as a law clerk for Vaden while the case was pending (Asia Wheel Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00096) (American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance v. United States, CIT # 23-00140).

DOJ attorney Robert Kiepura replaced Joshua Kurland as principal counsel in a case on the Commerce Department's countervailing duty investigation on wind towers from Canada. The court approved the change in a Feb. 8 order (Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 8 order vacated the dismissals of seven cases brought by Canadian exporter ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada G.P. Judge Timothy Stanceu reinstated the cases on the Customs Case Management Calendar and said they can remain there until Jan. 31, 2025 (ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada G.P. v. United States, CIT # 21-00037, -00038, -00039, -00040, -00041, -00042, -00043).

Two Feb. 6 motions for judgment from domestic petitioners and a foreign exporter both sought, for different reasons, to remand the Commerce Department’s final results in a 2021-2022 review of the antidumping duties on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT # 23-00202).

The U.S. Judicial Council's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability's recent report sustaining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's one-year suspension of Judge Pauline Newman didn't evaluate her constitutional claims, leaving that to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Newman told the district court (Pauline Newman v. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

After oral arguments regarding a Cambodian mattress exporter’s antidumping duty rate, the exporter, the U.S. and petitioners filed post-argument submissions Feb. 7 that focused on the Commerce Department's use of nonmarket economy data in a market economy case (Best Mattresses International v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00281).

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

The Commerce Department continued to give Indian exporter Bharat Forge Limited a 0% dumping rate after conducting on-site verification for the first time on remand. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7, Commerce said the on-site verification led to a host of revisions to the agency's margin calculations, though the end result was ultimately the same for the company (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00007).

The Commerce Department’s verification proceedings aren't “extensive” or “onerous,” and the department “has wide latitude” in conducting them even when investigating companies not party to a CVD investigation, the U.S. and a petitioner said Feb. 5 after another remand redetermination in a Chinese EBCP case challenging several cabinet exporters’ rates rooted in adverse facts available (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00110).