The National Consumers League sought March 13 to have its case against Starbucks moved from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a local D.C. court, arguing that the federal bench lacks subject matter jurisdiction for its claim that the coffee company lied to consumers that it was sourcing its coffee ethically (National Consumers League v. Starbucks Corp., D.D.C. 24-cv-00421).

Parties in Judge Pauline Newman's suit against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a briefing schedule on March 14 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Newman will submit her response to her colleagues' motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 5, and the three CAFC judges will file their reply April 19. Judges Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto submitted their motion for judgment last week, arguing that Newman's constitutional claims fell flat (see 2403110054) (Hon. Pauline Newman v. Hon. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

Exporter PT. Zinus Global Indonesia on March 14 dismissed its lawsuit at the Court of International Trade challenging the 2020-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia. The exporter filed the complaint in the case last month, contesting the Commerce Department's constructed value profit and selling expense ratios, treatment of B grade mattress sales as U.S. sales and differential pricing analysis. No reason was provided as to the suit's dismissal (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, CIT # 24-00004).

After the Commerce Department undertook a court-ordered on-site verification visit for an Indian forged steel fluid end block exporter due to a petitioner’s lawsuit, the petitioner responded in comments March 8 saying that the visit stirred up new inconsistencies that Commerce should have taken into consideration when calculating the exporter’s antidumping duty rate (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00007).

Petitioners contested in comments March 13 a third remand redetermination in which the Commerce Department reluctantly ruled that a German government subsidy was not specific to a German exporter of forged steel fluid end block. Commerce failed to conduct a de facto specificity analysis, they argued (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).

CBP violated Phoenix Metal Co.'s due process rights by not giving it notice and a chance to comment on interim measures imposed in an Enforce and Protect Act case on the company's cast iron soil pipe imports, the company said March 15 (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).

Correction: The Commerce Department on March 12 conducted "under respectful protest" a pass-through analysis to show, by court order, that an Indonesian tax program that lowered the cost of an input wasn't being double counted by antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on biodiesel from Indonesia. The agency continued to find that there was no double remedy and that it could disregard some sales due to a particular market situation (see 2403130049).

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

The Court of International Trade on March 14 gave parties in a customs case filed by importer BASF Corp. an extra two weeks to file dispositive motions. BASF filed a consent motion on March 13 after fact and expert discovery wrapped up to give the parties more time to prepare a "statement of undisputed material facts." BASF added that its counsel has other cases before the court and federal agencies, requiring the extension (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

Indian exporter Kumar Industries and the U.S. agreed that each should bear its own costs after Kumar withdrew its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an antidumping duty case (Kumar Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1293).