The United States said Sept. 30 that an Indian aluminum exporter was trying to “artificially separate two similar industries” in its attempt to avoid being assessed a countervailing duty for the provision of coal for less-than-adequate remuneration (Hindalco Industries Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00260).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 said court-led mediation in a suit from LE Commodities challenging 14 denied requests for exclusions from Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs resulted in a "settlement of all issues." Judge Leo Gordon led the mediation. Counsel for LE Commodities didn't respond to a request for comment on the nature of the settlement (LE Commodities v. United States, CIT # 22-00245).

An importer’s stainless steel sinks from China weren't incorrectly liquidated by CBP despite “express instructions” from Commerce, the U.S. said Oct. 1 in a cross-motion for summary judgment and in partial opposition to the importer’s own Sept. 5 motion for judgment. Rather, it said, the importer was misunderstanding a “straightforward issue” by mixing up components and value added (R.H. Peterson v. U.S., CIT # 20-00099).

The U.S. and Indian exporters led by Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited on Sept. 30 reached a settlement in pair of cases on the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India (Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited v. United States, CIT Consol. # 21-00512).

After the Commerce Department once again refused in an administrative review to investigate an alleged countervailable subsidy provided by the South Korean government, the original investigation’s petitioner claimed the department’s results upon remand (see 2408160038) actually showed a reluctance on Commerce's part to investigate time of use electricity supply systems that can sustain themselves annually (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).

A number of plaintiffs in a large case opposing a scope inquiry and finding of circumvention for hardwood plywood raised Sept. 30 the new Loper Bright standard of deference. They said that the whole point of the now-defunct Chevron standard was to delegate authority to agencies in deference to agency expertise for technical issues; the U.S. can’t make the same argument now that that exact argument has been explicitly overturned, they said (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 1 granted dismissal of government's appeal contesting the erroneous deemed liquidation of its goods that were subject to suspended liquidation. The Court of International Trade had ruled Fraserview didn't need a protest to file its suit (see 2401250039). CIT said that because the statute for deemed liquidation requires that the entries not be suspended, CBP's notices of deemed liquidation didn't operate to actually liquidate the entries. The U.S. appealed the decision but dropped the matter in a joint stipulation filed in September (see 2409060005) (Fraserview Remanufacturing v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2049).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 1 ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held on Oct. 16 in a suit from importer Retractable Technologies on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 tariff hike on needles and syringes. The importer filed the suit to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction on the duties, claiming the tariffs could send it out of business (see 2409270025) (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 30 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case brought by importer PrimeSource Building Products and exporter Cheng Ch International Co. The court held in its decision that the Commerce Department's use of only adverse facts available rates to set the rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping proceedings, known as the "expected method," isn't presumptively unreasonable (see 2408070020) (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).

A Belgium citric acid exporter isn’t alleging any flaw in its treatment in a review -- it’s just trying to challenge the settled, and reasonable, Commerce Department practice of never using quarterly cost allocation analyses for conversion costs in review, the U.S. said Sept. 27 (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).