Importer Diamond Tools Technology will appeal the Court of International Trade's rejection of the company's request for attorney's fees in its challenge to CBP's determination that Diamond Tools Technology evaded the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China. In March, Judge Timothy Reif said that since the case offered two issues of "first impression," the government's position was "substantially justified" for purposes of not awarding attorney's fees to the importer (Diamond Tools Technology v. United States, CIT # 20-00060).

Petitioners supporting a Commerce Department scope ruling argued that products’ end uses are not usually immediately considered for classification decisions and that industry support is only considered by the department during an initial antidumping or countervailing duty investigation, not during scope rulings or reviews (Hardware Resources, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00150).

The U.S. and a domestic petitioner April 25 opposed an importer’s motion for judgment in a scope case, arguing that, because the product at issue was coated with a substance that promotes the adherence of ink and other artist materials, the importer’s canvas banner matisse was subject to an antidumping duty order on certain artist canvas from China (Printing Textiles, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).

The U.S. and petitioner Nucor Corp. defended the Commerce Department's use of partial adverse facts available against exporter Salzgitter Flachstahl in the antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, in a pair of reply briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government said the steel company said Commerce properly identified a gap in the record stemming from Salzgitter's failure to submit manufacturer information for 28,000 of its sales from an affiliated reseller, Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

German exporter thyssenkrupp Rasselstein filed a notice of dismissal on April 26 at the Court of International Trade in its case contesting the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on tin mill products from Germany. The dismissal came before the company filed its complaint in the suit, only filing the summons on March 29. Counsel for the exporter didn't respond to a request for comment (thyssenkrupp Rasselstein v. United States, CIT # 24-00067).

A Vietnamese exporter of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube filed a motion for judgment in another case -- this one over a circumvention inquiry -- contesting the rejection of its filing because it narrowly missed a deadline. The exporter called the decision “fundamentally unfair” (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., Ltd v. U.S., CIT # 23-00248).

Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container is challenging the Commerce Department's decision to reclassify certain cylinders as outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand as part of its model match methodology. In its complaint, filed at the Court of International Trade April 24, Sahamitr also challenged Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in the 2021-22 review of the AD order (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT # 24-00064).

Several importers appealed for relief April 22 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, saying in their opening brief that the International Trade Commission wrongly reached an affirmative critical circumstances determination regarding their Vietnamese honey imports and the Court of International Trade erroneously upheld it (Sweet Harvest Foods v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1370).

Antidumping petitioner SSAB Enterprises argued that the Commerce Department was justified in using partial adverse facts available against respondent Salzgitter Flachstahl due to the company's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. While Salzgitter said it couldn't submit certain requested information because one of its affiliated resellers, Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel, didn't keep that information, SSAB said that "Salzgitter cannot rely on" Salzgitter Mannesmann's "sloppy recordkeeping as a valid excuse to justify its failure to provide Commerce with the requested manufacturer information" (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).

The Commerce Department unlawfully rescinded an administrative review, falsely determining that an exporter hadn't made any U.S. sales during the period being examined, the exporter said in April 19 motion for judgment (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00217).