A U.S. epoxy resin trade group said Dec. 3 that the Commerce Department was right to find that South Korea’s provision of low-cost off-peak electricity was specific to the country’s chemical industry (Kumho P&B Chemicals v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00143).

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

Importer Sigma Corp. dropped its antidumping duty scope case at the Court of International Trade on Dec. 4, filing a stipulation of dismissal. Sigma initially filed the case in 2019 to contest the Commerce Department's scope ruling on the company's Safelet and Unilet brand fire-protection weld outlets under the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 1901080013). The decision to drop the case comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a jury's determination that Sigma is liable under the False Claims Act for lying about whether its goods were subject to AD (see 2506240037) and a separate scope proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subjecting the goods to AD (Sigma v. United States, CIT # 19-00003).

The U.S. filed a supplemental brief on Dec. 3 urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to affirm a Montana court's decision to transfer a group of tribal members' tariff lawsuit to the Court of International Trade. The government said the plaintiffs will be able to fully adjudicate their claims at the trade court and that the 9th Circuit can't review the Montana court's transfer order, since it's not a final order nor an "immediately appealable collateral order" (Susan Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 9th Cir. # 25-2717).

International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates), an anti-forced labor advocacy group, filed suit last month against Apple, claiming the company engages in false and deceptive marketing of its products by touting the ethical sourcing of its minerals, while the actual sourcing of these minerals tells a different story.

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

The U.S. will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision upholding the Commerce Department's exclusion of seven types of bricks imported by Fedmet Resources Corp. from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on magnesia carbon bricks from China (see 2510090016). The trade court said the exclusion of the bricks comports with a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, which led to the standard that the addition of any amount of alumina to a magnesia carbon brick excludes it from the orders. The case was filed by Fedmet to contest the scope ruling, which came after a referral in an AD/CVD evasion case, on 11 of Fedmet's brick types. After CIT initially remanded the case to address the CAFC ruling, Commerce said seven of Fedmet's brick types are excluded from the order, since they have a non-zero alumina content. The government in appealing the case joins the petitioner, who has already asked the appellate court for expedited consideration of the matter (see 2511260067) (Fedmet Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00117).

Four related exporters, led by Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret, filed a stipulation of dismissal in an antidumping duty case it filed earlier this year at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, CIT # 25-00137).

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

Nebraska man Byungmin Chae on Dec. 3 urged the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to reconsider his second case against the results of his April 2018 customs broker license examination after the court dismissed the case on the basis that Chae should have raised his claims in his first case on the test (Byungmin Chae v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1379).