The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Importers Wego and Galleher either waived or forfeited any arguments they may have against the Commerce Department's separate antidumping duty rate calculated in the 2016-17 review of the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from China, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier this month, the government said the importers asked the Court of International Trade to sustain Commerce's remand results in which it calculated the separate rate, waiving any claims against the remand results (Galleher Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1196).

The U.S. and law firm Husch Blackwell again swapped briefs June 13 in the firm’s Freedom of Information Act dispute. Husch Blackwell said the government, which provided a list of more than 100 disclosed and undisclosed documents related to the firm’s FOIA request regarding an Entity List listing when it filed for summary judgment (see 2505300055), still wasn’t making clear which documents were actually responsive to the request (Husch Blackwell v. Department of Commerce, D.D.C. # 1:24-02733).

Antidumping duty petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, filed their opening brief on June 23 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to contest the Commerce Department's decision to exclude in-transit mattresses from the input data used to calculate quarterly ratios in an AD investigation (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).

The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:

Exporters led by Bioparques de Occidente agreed to voluntarily dismiss their appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an antidumping duty investigation on tomatoes from Mexico originally opened in 1996 but subject to a series of suspension agreements negotiated between the Commerce Department and the Mexican government. The case was previously stayed after the Court of International Trade settled a related lawsuit (Bioparques de Occidente v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2109).

The U.S. and importer Marubeni-Itochu Steel America jointly stipulated settlement terms for the importer’s classification case June 20. They agreed that the epoxy resin used as a coating for some of Marubeni-Itochu’s products, pilings for a wall system, should be included in the valuation of products classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 7301 rather than heading 7308 (Marubeni-Itochu Steel America Inc. v. United States, CIT # 23-00149).

The Court of International Trade on June 24 in a confidential decision sustained the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. In a letter to the litigants, Judge Claire Kelly said she intends to issue a public version of the decision on or shortly after July 2. Kelly previously remanded the investigation so the agency could redo its analysis of whether respondent Louis Dreyfus and its unnamed supplier, Supplier A, are affiliated or are partners (see 2411180024). Kelly said Commerce failed to consider whether Louis Drefyfus has the "ability to control Supplier A," and whether the supplier is "reliant" on the respondent. On remand, Commerce continued to find that Louis Dreyfus and Supplier A aren't affiliated, nor are they partners (see 2502180037). The agency said it's important to distinguish "exclusivity" from "reliance" in affiliation analyses, noting that an exclusive relationship with a supplier doesn't mean a party isn't capable of acting independently if the exclusive relationship is no longer in its interests (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).

Replying to U.S. opposition to its motion for judgment, shopping bag exporter Ditar said June 19 that the government still hasn’t addressed substantial evidence that Ditar’s home market sales had been made at “a more remote and significantly different level of trade” than its U.S. sales, justifying an adjustment in an antidumping duty investigation on Colombian paper shopping bags (Ditar v. United States, CIT # 24-00130).

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