Two Feb. 6 motions for judgment from domestic petitioners and a foreign exporter both sought, for different reasons, to remand the Commerce Department’s final results in a 2021-2022 review of the antidumping duties on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT # 23-00202).

The U.S. Judicial Council's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability's recent report sustaining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's one-year suspension of Judge Pauline Newman didn't evaluate her constitutional claims, leaving that to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Newman told the district court (Pauline Newman v. Kimberly Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

After oral arguments regarding a Cambodian mattress exporter’s antidumping duty rate, the exporter, the U.S. and petitioners filed post-argument submissions Feb. 7 that focused on the Commerce Department's use of nonmarket economy data in a market economy case (Best Mattresses International v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00281).

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

The Commerce Department continued to give Indian exporter Bharat Forge Limited a 0% dumping rate after conducting on-site verification for the first time on remand. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 7, Commerce said the on-site verification led to a host of revisions to the agency's margin calculations, though the end result was ultimately the same for the company (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00007).

The Commerce Department’s verification proceedings aren't “extensive” or “onerous,” and the department “has wide latitude” in conducting them even when investigating companies not party to a CVD investigation, the U.S. and a petitioner said Feb. 5 after another remand redetermination in a Chinese EBCP case challenging several cabinet exporters’ rates rooted in adverse facts available (Dalian Meisen Woodworking Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00110).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

British financial giant Standard Chartered Bank waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court in a False Claims Act case brought by whistleblower Brutus Trading. Standard Chartered said it doesn't intend to file a response unless prompted by the court (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).

The Commerce Department still hasn't proven that Hyundai received a subsidy in the form of a “direct transfer of funds” from the South Korean government due to the country’s cap and trade program, the exporter said Feb. 5 in comments on the department’s remand results (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S. , CIT # 22-00170).

Importers seeking reclassification of their 3D-printing pens as toys rather than machinery consolidated their cases Feb. 5 at the Court of International Trade (Quantified Operations Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00178).