Twenty-one U.S. citizens who were harmed -- and the estate of one who was killed -- in 2006 Hezbollah rocket attacks may bring the new owners of one of the terrorist group’s alleged major funders to court in New York, the state’s highest court certified April 18.

The United States asked for 14 more days to file its reply brief in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the validity of the Commerce Department's non-market economy policy in antidumping duty cases. The government said it needs more time to prepare its draft brief and receive input from DOJ "supervisory counsel" and Commerce attorneys (Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2245).

A domestic petitioner April 19 supported the U.S. in a case involving an antidumping duty investigation on freight rail couplers, saying that the case’s plaintiff, an exporter, had misunderstood the rules of statutory interpretation. That exporter has argued that the Commerce Department is barred from beginning new investigations fewer than two years before a previous one was completed (see 2404080049), pointing to statutory language governing changed circumstances reviews that appears to apply broadly (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00161).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 19 partially dismissed a lawsuit from sanctioned individuals Mir Rahman Rahmani and Hafi Ajmal Rahmani and over two dozen of their companies challenging their sanctions listing for their alleged role in a corruption scheme that swiped millions of dollars from U.S. contracts in Afghanistan (Mir Rahman Rahmani v. Janet Yellen, D.D.C. # 24-00285).

Importer MKI Enterprise Group, doing business as Winbo USA, filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on April 22 to contest CBP's denial of a Section 301 exclusion for its entries of "steel side protective attachments for motor vehicles, specifically side bars, fern bars, and bars" from China (MKI Enterprise Group v. United States, CIT # 22-00131).

Importer Saramax dismissed three customs cases it brought in 2000, 2003 and 2004 to contest the classification of its women's upper body garments. The company sought classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6212.90.00, dutiable at 6.8%, while CBP classified the goods under HTS subheading 6109.10.00, dutiable at 18.8% (Saramax v. United States, CIT # 00-00539, 03-00897, 04-00395).

U.S. steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs filed stipulations of dismissal in two suits challenging the International Trade Commission's negative injury findings in the five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil and the AD/CVD orders on hot-rolled steel from Brazil. The company had filed its complaint in both cases, arguing against the ITC's decision not to cumluate imports from Brazil with goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K.

The Court of International Trade again remanded the Commerce Department's remand results in the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, in an April 19 confidential opinion. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Mark Barnett gave the parties until April 26 to review the confidential information in the opinion. Barnett said Commerce shall "reconsider or further explain" its decision not to investigate the off-peak sale of electricity allegedly for less than adequate remuneration.

A manufacturer must have attributed to them all subsidies received by a cross-owned input supplier’s upstream product that is “primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream product,” a domestic petitioner said in an April 17 brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It also argued that the “downstream product” doesn’t need to be “subject merchandise” (Gujarat Fluorochemicals v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1268).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the government's appeal of a Court of International Trade decision scrapping a customs bond penalty action against surety firm American Home Assurance Co. The U.S. voluntarily dismissed the case (see 2404170042) (U.S. v. American Home Assurance Co., Fed. Cir. # 24-1069).