Antidumping duty respondent Octal moved to dismiss its challenge of the Commerce Department's decision to find that the company was affiliated with one of its U.S. customers, among other things. On Feb. 1, Commerce released its final determination in the underlying AD investigation terminating the order, leading Octal to petition to dismiss the case (Octal v. U.S., CIT # 20-03697).
The U.S. said that negotiations between it and importer Root Sciences over whether the company's imports should be seized as "drug paraphernalia" have "achieved substantial progress." Filing for its fifth extension of time over its reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. said that it and Root have been discussing how to settle the matter ever since the importer's informal proposal for negotiations (Root Sciences v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1795).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 3 order granted the Commerce Department's voluntary remand request to reconsider its decision to apply a cost-based particular market situation adjustment when calculating antidumping duty respondent Garg Tube Export's weighted-average dumping margin. The respondent consented to the motion in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's 2021 decision in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which found Commerce can't make a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT # 21-00169).
The Commerce Department defended its final results in an antidumping duty review in a Feb. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, arguing, among other things, that Commerce did not illegally change its methodology when it decided to use third-country control number (CONNUM) costs. The agency also claimed that plaintiff Navneet Education misread Commerce's decision not to use third-party CONNUMs in a review on ripe olives from Spain when it argued that the ripe olives case affirmed agency practice (Navneet Education v. United States, CIT # 22-00132).
CBP adhered to the Court of International Trade's order by complying with the requirement to provide public summaries of confidential information in an Enforce and Protect Act case and reviewing the entire record transmitted from one offce of CBP to another, the government argued in a Feb. 2 reply brief. Responding to arguments from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee over the use of public summaries to protect certain confidential information, the U.S. said that neither the EAPA statute, CBP's regulations nor the court's remand order permits or requires CBP to make "substantive" confidential information public (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enforcement Committee v. United States, CIT # 21-00129).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 2 order remanded the Commerce Department's final results in the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China, pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's mandate in the case (YC Rubber Co. (North America) v. United States, CIT # 19-00069).
Conservation groups Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society moved to toss one count of their complaint in a case seeking an import ban on certain fish taken from New Zealand's West coast North Island multispecies set-net and trawl fisheries. The plaintiffs filed a partial motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade on Feb. 2, arguing that the third count of the complaint, which is a challenge to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 2020 comparability findings on this area in New Zealand's waters, is moot since the findings expired at the end of 2022 (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, CIT #20-00112).
The Commerce Department's recent remand decision not to treat a countervailing duty respondent's supplier as a cross-owned input supplier is relevant for exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret's case at the Court of International Trade, the exporter argued. Filing a notice of supplemental authority on Feb. 2, Kaptan said that Commerce's remand decision in Nucor Corp. v. U.S. is "at odds with Commerce's analysis in the instant case" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).
Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari in a Feb. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade railed against U.S. Steel's bid to intervene in a case challenging the International Trade Commission's decision not to review an antidumping injury proceeding. The exporter said that U.S. Steel Corp. filed for intervention under the wrong legal standard since the case was established under Section 1581(i), the trade court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(c). Even if this point were irrelevant, Erdemir said the court should still prevent U.S. Steel (USSC) from intervening in the case since it was not a proper party to the underlying proceeding (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).
The U.S. and the Wind Tower Trade Coalition failed to show that the Commerce Department's findings in a countervailing duty case on wind towers from Canada were supported by substantial evidence, plaintiff-appellants Quebec and Canada and respondent Marmen Energie argued in a Feb. 1 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).