An exporter says a government brief failed to address its argument that the Commerce Department had found in a review that the exporter experienced large enough swings in production costs to call for a quarterly analysis, then went on to determine it had used differential pricing with the Cohen's d test anyway (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).

Several antidumping duty petitioners said in a March 7 complaint they will be contesting the Commerce Department’s refusal to combine a mandatory respondent with an affiliate for a 2021-2022 administrative review of an AD order on carbon and steel alloy from Italy. The department had said applications submitted by the petitioners included untimely information by citing prior agency memos not raised earlier in the proceeding (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).

U.S. importer CVB filed a complaint March 8 at the Court of International Trade claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly excluded importer Zinus' metal and wood platform beds from the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 24-00036).

A petitioner in antidumping and countervailing duty cases on chassis from China that later began to import vehicle chassis from Vietnam said the Commerce Department was misapplying the scope of its orders on Chinese chassis from China that it itself had requested (Pitts Enterprises, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00030).

Exporters Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. and Heze Huayi Chemical Co. filed a complaint on March 6 at the Court of International Trade to contest the Commerce Department's consideration of Romania as a surrogate country in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China (Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00026).

The Commerce Department can't use prior administrative reviews as the basis for decisions when doing so goes against factual evidence, an appellee argued March 4 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).

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

U.S. importer CME Acquisitions filed a complaint on March 6 at the Court of International Trade to contest the adverse facts available rate for the non-selected companies in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Taiwan (CME Acquisitions v. United States, CIT # 24-00032).

International Rights Advocates said the Court of International Trade's recent decision in Ninestar Corp. v. U.S. "highlights the unreasonableness of CBP's delay in issuing a [withhold release order] against imports of cocoa products made with forced child labor in Cote d'Ivoire" (International Rights Advocates v. U.S., CIT # 23-00165).

Another ball bearings exporter threw its complaint into the ring March 5 to contest a recent antidumping duty administrative review. It alleged that the Commerce Department unnecessarily applied partial adverse facts available and needlessly conducted a pricing differential analysis for the mandatory respondent (Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00038).