The D.C. U.S. District Court on March 11 dismissed a lawsuit from a senior Democratic Republic of Congo elections official challenging his sanctions designation, saying the listing wasn't "arbitrary or capricious" and that due process laws weren't violated.

The U.S. defended the Commerce Department before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 18 regarding a number of decisions it made during its 13th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on activated carbon from China, including its selection of two Malaysian exporters as surrogates over a respondent’s opposition (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co., Ltd. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2413).

Christopher Curran, litigation partner at White & Case, has joined a scope case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of Japanese exporter Sigma Corp., according to a March 18 order from the appellate court. The suit was originally brought by manufacturer Vandewater International on whether its steel branch outlets fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2306020065). Curran joins trade lawyers Lucius Lau, Ron Kendler and Walter Spak in representing Sigma (Vandewater International v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

An exporter argued March 6 to the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department failed to justify allocating one of the exporter’s expenses across the entire period of review instead of on a more specific monthly basis. The department is required to use an allocation method that is as specific as possible, it said (Sahamitr Pressure Container PLC v. U.S., CIT # 22-0107).

The National Consumers League sought March 13 to have its case against Starbucks moved from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a local D.C. court, arguing that the federal bench lacks subject matter jurisdiction for its claim that the coffee company lied to consumers that it was sourcing its coffee ethically (National Consumers League v. Starbucks Corp., D.D.C. 24-cv-00421).

Parties in Judge Pauline Newman's suit against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a briefing schedule on March 14 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Newman will submit her response to her colleagues' motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 5, and the three CAFC judges will file their reply April 19. Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto submitted their motion for judgment last week, arguing that Newman's constitutional claims fell flat (see 2403110054) (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

Exporter PT. Zinus Global Indonesia on March 14 dismissed its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the 2020-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia. The exporter filed the complaint in the case last month, contesting the Commerce Department's constructed value profit and selling expense ratios, treatment of B grade mattress sales as U.S. sales and differential pricing analysis. No reason was provided as to the suit's dismissal (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, CIT # 24-00004).

After the Commerce Department undertook a court-ordered on-site verification visit for an Indian forged steel fluid end block exporter due to a petitioner’s lawsuit, the petitioner responded in comments March 8 saying that the visit stirred up new inconsistencies that Commerce should have taken into consideration when calculating the exporter’s antidumping duty rate (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00007).

Petitioners contested in comments March 13 a third remand redetermination in which the Commerce Department reluctantly ruled that a German government subsidy was not specific to a German exporter of forged steel fluid end block. Commerce failed to conduct a de facto specificity analysis, they argued (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).

CBP violated Phoenix Metal Co.'s due process rights by not giving it notice and a chance to comment on interim measures imposed in an Enforce and Protect Act case on the company's cast iron soil pipe imports, the company said March 15 (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).