Responding to opposition to its motion for judgment, steel importer CME Acquisitions said “judicial and administrative precedent” still support pulling forward prior calculated antidumping duty rates for non-selected respondents to a review when all selected respondents are hit with adverse facts available (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).

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

In a complaint brought Jan. 21 in the Court of International Trade, exporter East Asia Aluminum Company alleged that a Commerce Department investigation failed to properly account for its scrap byproduct, which East Asia Aluminum continuously reintroduces back into production, which caused a chain of circumstances resulting in a far-too-late affirmative critical circumstances determination (East Asia Aluminum Company v. United States, CIT # 24-00255).

Vietnamese circular welded steel pipe exporter SeAH Steel Vina denied in a Jan. 13 brief that it was confusing antidumping and countervailing duty reviews with circumvention inquiries. Leaning on Loper Bright, it again argued that circumvention inquiries can’t be conducted into the same products from the same countries if they were previously found not to have been dumped or subsidized (SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00256, -00257, -00258).

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 22 sustained CBP's decision on remand to find that importer Zinus didn't evade the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China. The agency made the decision after incorporating a scope ruling from the Commerce Department finding that seven models of metal and wood platform beds imported by Zinus aren't covered by the AD order (see 2501130011) (Zinus v. United States, CIT # 23-00272).

Exporters PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia and PT Grantec Jaya Indonesia -- two companies collapsed into one for antidumping duty procedural purposes -- took to the Court of International Trade on Jan. 21 to contest the 2022-23 review of the AD order on mattresses from Indonesia. Ecos/Grantec challenged the Commerce Department's determination to adjust three expense fields to include "overpaid allowances," along with the agency's adjustments to the companies' total cost of manufacturing under the "transactions disregarded" provision of U.S. antidumping law (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. United States, CIT # 24-00238).

The U.S. filed Jan. 21 to dismiss a 2024 case brought by importer Houston Shutters under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, saying the true nature of the action is a challenge to a scope determination and that the action should have been brought under Section 1581(c) instead (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit scheduled oral argument for the lead case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis, for March 5 at 10 a.m. EST. The issue was previously remanded by the Federal Circuit for Commerce to explain its use of the d test despite not adhering to basic statistical assumptions, such as the normal distribution of data and roughly equal variances (see 2107150032). The agency said on remand that it didn't need to adhere to these assumptions, since it's using the entire population of data and not just a sample. The Court of International Trade upheld this explanation (see 2302270049) (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

In a complaint before the Court of International Trade filed Jan. 20, two exporters alleged that the Commerce Department failed to correct multiple ministerial errors during an antidumping duty review on Chinese activated carbon (Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00262).