Petitioner Brooklyn Bedding's argument against two issues in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on Indonesian mattresses amount to "mere disagreement" with the Commerce Department's decisions, "falling far short of the required showing," the U.S. told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Dec. 3 reply brief (PT. Zinus Global Indonesia v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1674).

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

The U.S. filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss a case from importer Eteros Technologies and three of its executives alleging retaliation against the parties for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. The government told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington the plaintiffs "continue to conflate customs and immigration law" and failed to "plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 2 dismissed a pair of cases for failure to file a complaint within the statutorily prescribed time to do so. Both cases were brought by countervailing duty petitioners to contest the Commerce Department's final determination in the CVD investigation on corrosion-resistant steel products from Canada (see 2510290053). The companies, Steel Dynamics and Nucor Corporation, are represented by different attorneys, and neither immediately responded to requests for comment (Steel Dynamics v. U.S., CIT # 25-00237) (Nucor Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 25-00238).

A total of four hardwood plywood importers or exporters dropped their cases at the Court of International Trade contesting the Commerce Department's final results of the 2021-22 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on hardwood plywood products from China.

A petitioner was wrong that the trade court made "several cascading errors” in its motion remanding a scope ruling on dual-stenciled pipe by failing to consider two other cases, the U.S. and exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe each said in reply briefs Dec. 2 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company v. United States, CIT # 21-00049).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate on Dec. 1 in an antidumping duty case after finding the Commerce Department erred in using likely selling prices as facts otherwise available for AD respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's cost of production in the AD investigation on carbon and steel cut-to-length plate from Germany (see 2510060037). The court said that where there's a gap to fill on the record, "there must be a reasonable relationship between the selected facts otherwise available and the gap to be filled," and that no such relationship existed between the likely selling prices and Dillinger's cost of production (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

In a Dec. 1 cross-motion for judgment, the U.S. said certain 2018 and 2019 cigarette entries imported by Scottsdale Tobacco didn’t qualify for a substitution of unused merchandise drawback because it hadn’t provided the necessary paperwork to prove its claim. Further, the government said, the drawback claim hadn’t automatically liquidated, either (see 2508250048) (Scottsdale Tobacco v. United States, CIT # 24-00022).

LCD display exporter Innolux Corporation moved Nov. 26 to dismiss seven cases against the United States. The cases argued that its automobile display monitors should have been classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 8531.20.0020, 8528.59.2500 or 9013.80.7000, all duty-free, rather than under subheading 9013.80.9000, which carries a 4.5% duty (see 2404090042) (Innolux Corporation v. United States, CIT # 24-00065, -00167, -00168, -00169, -00170, -00171, -00172).