The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on Feb. 8 approved a settlement between shipping companies Kloosterboer International Forwarding and Alaska Reefer Management and CBP and DOJ in the companies' suit against Jones Act penalties levied against them. The settlement's terms will see KIF and ARM pay $9.5 million, much less than the over $400 million sought by CBP for the Jones Act violations (Kloosterboer International Forwarding v. U.S., D. Alaska # 3:21-00198).

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

Exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and importer C&U Americas brought a suit to the Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 challenging the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The five-count complaint alleges a host of errors in the review, including on Commerce's use of partial adverse facts available (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).

Exporter Nanjing Kaylang Co. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 contesting a Commerce Department scope ruling that found Kaylang's products made from phragmites are subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China (Nanjing Kaylang Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00045).

An aluminum foil importer argued Feb. 20 that the Commerce Department was wrong to find that a South Korean exporter circumvented antidumping and countervailing duties on Chinese aluminum because the underlying Chinese inputs underwent “significant” processing (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

The U.S. will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China, it said in a Feb. 16 notice of appeal. The government lost at the trade court with regard to its land benchmark calculation and use of adverse facts available pertaining to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2312200026).

An antidumping duty petitioner said Feb. 17 that the Commerce Department accidentally included offsets for scrap not produced during the investigation period in its calculation of an exporter's normal value in an administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on Greek pipe (The American Line Pipe Producers Trade Association Committee v. U.S., CIT # 24-00012).

A Chinese ball bearings exporter asked for another remand of an antidumping duty review on its products after the Commerce Department exchanged its adverse facts available AD rate for one based on neutral facts, saying the department double-counted when constructing its products’ values and wrongly capped its revenue related to Section 301 duties (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00038).

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2018 review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea. In its remand redetermination, Commerce lowered exporter Hyundai Steel Co.'s CVD rate to a de minimis mark after removing the subsidy attributed to the company's usage rights for the North Incheon Harbor in South Korea (see 2401240062) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00304).

Again remanding the Commerce Department’s final affirmative determination in mattress exporter Zinus Indonesia's antidumping duty case, the Court of International Trade said that facts otherwise available weren't warranted in Commerce's construction of the exporter’s export price and that the department needed to consider new evidence in constructing its selling expenses.