Plaintiffs in a case regarding the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood mouldings and millwork from China filed two briefs Sept. 25 with the Court of International Trade, again arguing that, one, one respondent’s trading company should have been entitled to the same separate rate as the respondent itself, and, two, that the Commerce Department illegitimately chose to end its review of another respondent early and instead use adverse facts available (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #s 23-000216, -00217).

An importer of tubing for perforating guns filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings despite the fact that issues of fact still remain unresolved, the U.S. said in a response brief Sept. 24 (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

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

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).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 24 recaptioned an appeal of an antidumping duty case after importer Worldwide Distribution said it no longer wishes to take part in the case, given that it failed to file a notice of appeal (see 2409160010). As a result, the court lifted the stay in the case and gave exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container 60 days to file its opening brief. Sahamitr originally brought suit to challenge the 2019-20 review of the AD order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. The Court of International Trade said Sahamitr failed to undermine Commerce's finding that the company's monthly-based calculation of its sales costs were distortive (see 2405020029) (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).

In a post-oral argument submission Sept. 20, Chinese exporters of xanthan gum focused on the government’s claim that they had waived their challenge to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule categorization of bituminous coal in a review by failing to meet the exhaustion requirement (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068)

The U.S. on Sept. 24 moved to dismiss mattress importer Pay Less Here's suit on the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding on mattresses from Burma, saying the company failed to file an entry of appearance in the proceeding. The government said that, as a result of this failure, the company isn't an "interested party" that can challenge the determination at the Court of International Trade (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).

Importer Omni Distributors on Sept. 24 voluntarily dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its hand sanitizer imports. Omni Distributors said the goods, classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3824.99.9297, should qualify for Section 301 exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. Counsel for the importer declined to comment (Omni Distributors v. United States, CIT # 22-00250).

The International Trade Commission on Sept. 23 opposed exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari's (Erdemir's) motion to consolidate three of its appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).

Importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, filed separate notices of dismissal in two cases at the Court of International Trade. In both cases, the importer said CBP refused to explain why it denied a protest on its vehicle parts after the agency assessed antidumping duties 78.55% higher than it had been assigned in a past AD review (see 2407240019 and 2408090021). The cases both said CBP failed to provide adequate reasoning for denying the protests. In one, the company said the protest denial improperly centered on a message from the Commerce Department, which it wasn't given access to. Counsel for the importer didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply, LLC v. U.S., CIT #s 24-00124, -00149).