Patent attorney Andrew Dhuey offered to appear as amicus curiae at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to defend Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden's decision rejecting an unopposed motion to redact certain confidential information from the merits decision on an AD/CVD injury determination. Dhuey, who is on the trade court's roster of pro bono counsel, said he would like to be appointed by CAFC to defend Vaden's decision, "arguing on behalf of the public interest in judicial transparency" (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).

Petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire voluntarily dismissed its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of an antidumping duty proceeding in light of the appellate court's decision in a related case rejecting the use of total adverse facts available against exporter Oman Fasteners (see 2501070084). In all, two appeals were filed -- one challenging the Court of International Trade's injunction on the collection of cash deposits at the AFA rate and another on the underlying AD proceeding itself. With the rejection of the AFA rate in the appeal on the injunction, Mid Continent dropped its separate appeal (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1350).

Petitioner Deer Park Glycine this week dropped its case at the Court of International Trade on the 2022 review of the countervailing duty order on glycine from India. The company has brought a host of other cases to the trade court regarding the antidumping duty and countervailing duty measures on glycine, including a 1581(i) action against the Commerce Department's decision to deny a scope ruling application from the petitioner (see 2501070087). Counsel for Deer Park declined to comment (Deer Park Glycine v. United States, CIT # 24-00268).

Exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container dropped its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the 2019-20 review of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand, according to a Jan. 29 notice filed at the court. Sahamitr filed its opening brief in the case last month, arguing that the Commerce Department improperly used a period of review-wide allocation methodology for the company's expenses (see 2412030054). The respondent argued that it followed Commerce's instructions throughout the review only for the agency to find that its reporting was "distortive." Counsel for Sahamitr didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).

Defendant-intervenor Dixon Ticonderoga on Jan. 28 joined the Commerce Department in opposing pencil importer School Specialty’s scope ruling challenge before the Court of International Trade (School Specialty v. United States, CIT # 24-00098).

Steel rail coupler importer Wabtec filed a supplemental brief in its dispute against a repeated antidumping investigation (see 2405220058) that saw it change tracks somewhat. It argued that the International Trade Commission wrongly expanded the scope of its injury determination to include unattached couplers, and it claimed that “[e]very statutory element imposes a limit” on Commerce’s ability to define an investigation’s reach (Wabtec Corporation v. United States, CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).

The Commerce Department's antidumping duty order on artist canvas from China is "void-for-vagueness and unconstitutional," importer Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. The company argued that Commerce's "impermissibly unlawful" scope ruling including its canvas banner matisse within the scope of the order "denied Berger adequate notice," adding that the agency "failed to address due process concerns of vague language in the scope of the order" (Printing Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1213).

The following new lawsuits have been filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

The Commerce Department erred in selecting Turkey and not Bulgaria as the main surrogate country in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from China, exporters Tianjin Magnesium International Co. and Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co. argued in a Jan. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Tianjin Magnesium International Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00002).

The Commerce Department erred in picking Malaysia as the main surrogate country in the 2022-23 review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, exporter Carbon Activated Corp. argued in a Jan. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Carbon Activated said that Romania was the better choice and that Commerce's use of Malaysia surrogate values for coal tar, sub-bituminous coal, hydrochloric acid, solid sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide was unsupported by substantial evidence (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00265).