A Turkish rebar exporter Nov. 17 sought judgment in two old and two new challenges against the Commerce Department in the Court of International Trade (see 2407010038) (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #24-00096).

An importer of mastectomy bras filed Nov. 21 its motion for judgment in a 2020 case (see 2107140063) arguing that its bras should have been classified by CBP as parts or accessories for artificial body parts, not as “other brassieres of manmade fiber” (Amoena USA Corp. v. U.S., CIT #20-00100).

A plaintiff and defendant-intervenor provided lukewarm responses to the Commerce Department’s new results on remand for its antidumping duty review on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India (see 2407120016), each supporting it in part (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).

No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

Responding to tapered roller bearing exporters’ August motion for judgment that cited Loper Bright to challenge the Commerce Department’s use of Cohen’s d test in administrative reviews, the U.S. said Nov. 14 that the department still exercises significant discretion in antidumping and countervailing duty matters (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).

Importer Coulisse Distribution voluntarily dismissed its customs suit at the Court of International Trade on its DC (direct current) electric motors, filing a notice of dismissal Nov. 14. Coulisse filed the suit seeking an exclusion from Section 301 duties under Harmonized Tariff Schedule secondary subheading 9903.88.67. The motors were classified under subheading 8501.10.4060, dutiable at 4.4%, and secondary subheading 9903.88.01. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to our request for comment (Coulisse Distribution v. U.S., CIT # 23-00245).

Antidumping duty petitioner Coalition of American Millwork Producers dismissed its case on the 2022-23 review of the AD duty order on wood moldings and millwork products from China. The petitioner filed a notice of dismissal at the Court of International Trade on Nov. 15 at the Court of International Trade. Counsel for the coalition didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Coalition of American Millwork Producers v. U.S., CIT # 24-00194).

Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology filed an amended complaint in its suit against its designation as a Chinese military company after the Pentagon relisted the company (see 2410230018), arguing that the decision is "just as unsubstantiated and weak as the original one that they recently refused to defend" (Hesai Technology Co. v. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-01381).

The Commerce Department "clearly considered" antidumping scope language highlighted by exporter Export Packers Co. in its challenge to the agency's inclusion of the company's garlic in the AD order on fresh garlic from China, petitioner Fresh Garlic Producers Association argued. Replying to Export Packers' motion for judgment on Nov. 19 at the Court of International Trade, the petitioner said the scope of the order explicitly covers the garlic at issue, which is separated into individual cloves and frozen (Export Packers Company Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 24-00061).

In support of the results after remand of an antidumping duty review on welded carbon-quality steel from the United Arab Emirates (see 2409240022), defendant-intervenors said the Commerce Department’s use of inter-quarter comparisons in a differential pricing analysis but same-quarter comparisons in a margin calculation was reasonable because the contexts are different (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).