The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 14 order granted the Commerce Department's bid for a voluntary remand to address its selection of only one respondent in a countervailing duty case. Judge Timothy Reif gave the agency 45 days to file its remand results (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol #20-03885).

The Commerce Department correctly assigned an adverse facts available rate to a Vietnamese exporter for its failure to respond to a supplemental questionnaire, even though it had previously found the company was not under government control and granted it a separate rate, the Catfish Farmers of America, a defendant-intervenor, argued in its Feb. 10 response brief at the Court of International Trade (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT # 22-00092).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Feb. 13 text-only notice alerted appellee CP Kelco it has failed to file a response brief in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The court said failure to file such a brief could lead to "dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court" (All One God Faith v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1078).

The Commerce Department is apparently expanding a covered merchandise inquiry in an Enforce and Protect Act case into what is in effect an anti-circumvention inquiry, but can't use any prospective finding of circumvention to find an importer previously evaded duties in violation of the Enforce and Protect Act, plaintiffs Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group (IPPG) argued in a Feb. 14 brief asking the Court of International Trade to reconsider its prior stay in the case (Norca Industrial Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00192).

The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand in a countervailing duty case at the Court of International Trade in light of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that the agency cannot select just one mandatory respondent in an antidumping or countervailing duty review where multiple exporters have requested a review. Filing an unopposed motion for remand Feb. 14, Commerce said the decision, YC Rubber v. U.S., "may implicate Commerce's respondent selection determinations at issue in this litigation" (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., et al. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 13 order granted importer Strato's voluntary dismissal notice without prejudice in its customs case on selective cushioning units. While the U.S. did not serve an answer nor a motion for summary judgment in the case, Strato's counsel discussed with the government's counsel and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case, the order said (Strato v. United States, CIT # 22-00315).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should grant a U.S. motion for more time to file its reply brief in an antidumping duty scope ruling challenge, the government argued in a Feb. 10 brief responding to arguments from appellant Sigma Corp. opposing the extension request. In its brief, Sigma said the extension bid could affect a parallel False Claims Act action at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. But even Signma concedes that the 9th Circuit is considering waiting for the Federal Circuit's decision before settling the False Claims Act matter, which indicates that the Federal Circuit should grant the extension request, the U.S. said (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

Imports of seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe from Russia were not negligible, argued the ITC and defendant-intevenors U.S. Steel and Vallourec Star in two separate responses to a proposed remand order by Russian importer TMK (PAO TMK v. United States, CIT # 21-00532).

The Court of International Trade in a paperless order Feb. 13 denied plaintiff Oman Fasteners' bid to fix mistakes in its motion to take judicial notice in an antidumping duty case. AD petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire opposed the motion on the grounds it was the second time in under a month the exporter asked the trade court for leave to address problems in one of its briefs. Judge M. Miller Baker issued the order (Oman Fasteners v. United States, CIT # 22-00348).