Importer Smith-Cooper International on July 10 dismissed its case challenging an antidumping duty scope ruling it initially filed in 2019. The Commerce Department's scope ruling had found that the company's Cooplet weld outlets are subject to AD on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to request for comment on the case (Smith-Cooper International v. United States, CIT # 19-00011).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in a July 10 text-only order, told parties in a case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to file a joint status report that lays out the parties' proposed schedule to govern future proceedings at the district court. The case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 2507030052). At the district court, Judge Rudolph Contereras held that the Court of International Trade doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction in the case, since IEEPA categorically doesn't provide for tariffs (see 2505290037) (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, D.D.C. # 25-01248).

Exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. and importer Craft33 Products said in two July 7 motions for judgment that the Commerce Department had again wrongly applied adverse facts available claiming potential use of China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00223).

The Commerce Department released July 9 its remand results of a scope ruling on calcium glycinate from India, Japan and Thailand. It said it now finds that calcium glycinate is covered by antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on glycine “regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer” (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

The Court of International Trade's recent "dictum" on whether the Tariff Act of 1930 lets the Commerce Department impose antidumping duties and countervailing duties on an upstream product that's incorporated into a downstream product imported into the U.S. isn't relevant for adjudication of a pair of separate AD/CVD scope cases, the U.S. said (Wabtec Corporation v. U.S., CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 10 denied exporter Carbon Activated's bid for a panel rehearing of its antidumping duty case on the Commerce Department's selection of the surrogate value for carbonized material in the 2018-19 review of the AD order on Chinese activated carbon. Judges Richard Taranto, Alvin Schall and Raymond Chen denied the request (Carbon Activated Tianjin v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).

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

The Commerce Department failed to correct for respondent Dongkuk S&C's conversion costs and improperly relied on Dongkuk's information from a past antidumping duty review as the basis for constructed value ratios, petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued in a July 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner brought the suit to contest the 2022-23 review of the AD order on utility scale wind towers from South Korea (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 25-00104).

Power supply and cables importer PowerTec Solutions agreed on July 8 to the government’s partial motion to dismiss the importer's case seeking a duty refund (PowerTec Solutions International v. United States, CIT # 22-00322).

Wooden cabinet importers led by Cabinetworks Group argued June 27 that the U.S. hadn’t acknowledged the impact of Loper Bright on the Commerce Department’s ability to conduct circumvention determinations -- Congress didn’t “delegate unfettered authority to Commerce,” they said (ACProducts v. United States, CIT #s 24-00155, -00156).