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.

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).

A Vietnamese exporter and the U.S. both opposed March 20 defendant-intervenors’ motion to consolidate the exporter’s three cases fighting the assignment of adverse facts available to an exporter due to a minor submission delay (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00250).

Importer Maple Leaf Marketing filed a stipulation of dismissal in its customs suit on the classification of boronized steel tubing. Before the dismissal, the case served as a forum for the government to argue that it could assert counterclaims in customs cases. The U.S. moved to redesignate its counterclaim as a defense, which the Court of International Trade granted after finding that nowhere in Congress' scheme on the classification of goods does the legislative body explicitly let the government assert a counterclaim challenging CBP's classification (see 2306140053). The original counterclaim said that the steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are subject to Section 301 tariffs and correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).

A U.S. petitioner on March 18 again argued that a Dutch preserved mushrooms exporter “significantly impeded” a Commerce Department antidumping duty investigation and that the agency shouldn't have granted the exporter a de minimis AD rate (Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).

CBP reversed its finding that four importers evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on hardwood plywood from China on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting its remand results on March 20, CBP said that since the Commerce Department reversed its covered merchandise scope decision in a separate trade court case, the importers' goods no longer constitute "covered merchandise" and thus did not evade the AD/CVD orders (Far East American v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00213).

Correction: Indian exporter Kumar appealed a decision sustaining the Commerce Department's assignment of a 13.61% adverse facts available antidumping rate to the exporter (see 2403140027).