A group of U.S. mattress makers, led by Brooklyn Bedding, opposed exporter CVB's request for a 60-day extension in which to file its opening brief in an injury suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Only consenting to a 14-day extension, the mattress makers said CVB "has failed to show good cause exists" for a longer extension since the trade court's decision in the suit was issued over 90 days ago (CVB v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Evan Wallach on March 25 deferred exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to dismiss an interlocutory appeal in an antidumping duty case to the three-judge merits panel assigned to the case. The appeal came from petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire from the Court of International Trade's decision to impose an injunction on the Commerce Department's AD cash deposits on Oman Fasteners' steel nail imports. Oman Fasteners moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that since the injunction is no longer active since Commerce completed the next review of the AD order, there's no live controversy (see 2401300069). The trade court granted the injunction after finding the agency abused its discretion in setting a 154.33% AD rate on the exporter for narrowly missing a filing deadline (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
The Court of International Trade on March 21 reassigned three cases to Judge Jane Restani.
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. on March 22 moved to treat its submission at the Court of International Trade in support of its motion to unseal and unredact the record as a "highly sensitive document" in its case contesting its listing on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The exporter said it doesn't waive any claim that certain parts of the record "should eventually be unsealed," nor does it waive any argument that its requested documents shouldn't be treated as confidential information under the court's protective order (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty case in which it "changed the way it calculated ocean freight." Since no party objected to the new calculation, Judge Jane Restani sustained the remand.
Judge Mark Barnett of the Court of International Trade indicated in March 19 oral arguments that he is leaning toward remanding a case about the application of an adverse facts available rate to an exporter that missed an unusual 10 a.m. filing deadline by five hours (Cambria Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).
The Court of International Trade in a decision made public March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's decision to rely on "other information" instead of polling the industry to calculate industry support for the antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. But Judge Claire Kelly sent back the industry support decision due to accuracy concerns on the data Commerce relied on, including on whether "finishing operations were counted twice."
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Correction: The Commerce Department shouldn't have granted a de minimis antidumping duty rate to a respondent in the AD investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands, the domestic petitioner for the investigation argued in a motion for judgment filed at the Court of International Trade Nov. 21 (see 2312010061) (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
Defendant-intervenor New Zealand told the Court of International Trade on March 19 that all parties now agree they would like the court to dissolve a preliminary injunction prohibiting the U.S. and others from purchasing nine types of seafood from certain New Zealand exporters (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. U.S., CIT # 20-00112).