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).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 27 granted exporter Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology Co.'s motion to sever and dismiss it from a lawsuit on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China. The suit will continue with plaintiffs Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas. The companies brought the case to allege that the Commerce Department unnecessarily applied partial adverse facts available and errantly conducted a pricing differential analysis (see 2403060080). Counsel for Zhejiang Jingli didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the reason for its voluntary dismissal (Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00038).

Exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) on Sept. 30 defended its bid to consolidate its three appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey. Erdemir said all three cases are "intertwined" since they are "based on the same triggering act" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 30 granted a pair of voluntary dismissal motions from importer Travelway Group International on its two import classification cases. Both cases sought Section 301 exclusions for its backpack and bag entries of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131. Counsel for Travelway didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT #s 22-00313, 23-00057).

Ljiljana Karadzic asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to set aside its order dismissing her suit challenging her designation on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals List (see 2408070040). Karadzic claimed the D.C. court failed to address her claim that OFAC made an "unreasonable" decision in "declining to remove her from the list" (Ljiljana Zelen Karadzic v. Lisa Palluconi, D.D.C. # 23-01226).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 27 granted the government's motion for a voluntary remand in a case on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy. The U.S. asked for the remand to reconsider the "single-entity treatment" of exporters Dalmine and Silcotub (see 2409260027). During the review, Commerce rejected submissions from the petitioners, led by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, which contained five memos from the Commerce Department from recent cases in which the agency collapsed entities "under analogous facts." The U.S. asked for a remand to reconsider its rejections of these submissions and, by extension, the collapsing analysis (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).

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

Petitioners pushed back Sept. 26 against a Court of International Trade remand order (see 2405310043) that resulted in the Commerce Department lowering a Brazilian honey exporter’s antidumping duty resulting from an investigation from 83.72% to 10.52% (see 2408270029) (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).

Exporter Nagase & Co. will appeal its case on the first review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan, according to its Sept. 27 notice of appeal at the Court of International Trade. In July, the court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to remove Nagase's compensation for payment expense from its general and administrative expense ratio and said that Nagase failed to exhaust its administrative remedies pertaining to its challenge to Commerce's assessment rate (see 2407300052). The exporter challenged the assessment rate at CIT, despite not raising the issue during the review, claiming that the remand proceeding at the trade court created a new decision for judicial review. The court rejected that claim (Nagase & Co. v. U.S., CiT # 21-00574).

Antidumping duty petitioners led by Brooklyn Bedding argued on Sept. 25 that foldable mattresses from exporters PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia and PT Grantec Jaya Indonesia don't qualify for an exception to the AD order on mattresses from Indonesia for multifunctional furniture (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00001).