Countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. argued on Sept. 9 that the Commerce Department erred in reconsidering the alleged benefit conferred by debt-to-equity swap element of exporter KG Dongbu's debt restructuring program. Nucor said Commerce "has the inherent authority to reconsider its prior determinations, whether or not that reconsideration is based on specific types of new evidence on the record," making the decision to countervail the debt-to-equity swaps lawful, despite the agency having come to different conclusions in the past (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00047).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 13 dismissed a suit from three U.S.-based honey producers related to the alleged import of "fake" honey. Judge Daniel Calabretta held that the honey producers, led by Henry's Bullfrog Bees, failed to include sufficiently specific factual allegations to support their claims that the defendants -- honey importers and distributors -- engaged in fraud (Henry's Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading, E.D. Cal. # 2:21-00582).

Antidumping duty petitioner Daikin America on Sept. 9 opposed the Commerce Department's remand results finding it wasn't feasible for respondent Gujarat Fluorochemicals to report its movement expenses on a transaction-specific basis. Daikin said the agency wrongfully said Gujarat's grade-based allocation was as specific as it could be and didn't cause "inaccuracies and distortions" (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 12 allowed the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations appear as an amicus in a case on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping. The committee filed the brief to respond to claims from other amici led by the Canadian government, which invoked various academic literature on the use of the test (see 2408230010) (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 12 dismissed a customs penalty suit against Greenlight Organic and its owner Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh after the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. The parties told the court a settlement was reached in the case, which was filed in 2017 to address an alleged misclassification scheme carried out by the defendants (see 2409090056) (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).

Antidumping duty petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition argued on Sept. 11 that the Commerce Department unlawfully interpreted statutory language on whether exporter Dongkuk S&C's records reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production and sale of subject goods (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00070).

The adverse facts available rate an Indian glycine exporter was assigned for failing to prove it was no longer doing business with two former affiliates was fair and accurate, the U.S. said Sept. 6 in response to a motion for judgment (see 2406040059) (Kumar Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00263).

The U.S. denied Sept. 9 that the Commerce Department was misinterpreting the statutory standard for determining the existence of sales made by an exporter at different levels of trade (Compania Valencia de Aluminio Baux, S.L.U. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00259).

The U.S. on Sept. 10 opposed exporter Koehler's request for the Court of International Trade to certify its order permitting service on the company's U.S. counsel to allow for an immediate appeal of the order. The government said an immediate appeal will fail to "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation" because the U.S. can still effect service through other means if the court's order is reversed (United States v. Koehler Oberkirch GmbH, CIT # 24-00014).

Importer Plasticolor Molded Products on Sept. 10 dismissed its customs case on the classification of its automobile seat covers. CBP classified the goods under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.99.8180, dutiable at 2.5%, with Section 301 tariffs assessed under subheading 9903.88.03. Plasticolor said the goods fit under subheading 8708.99.8180, dutiable at 2.5%, but were excluded from Section 301 duties under subheading 9903.88.43. Counsel for Plasticolor declined to comment on the reason for the dismissal (Plasticolor Molded Products v. United States, CIT # 20-03822).