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).

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

Plaintiff-appellant Sigma Corp. opposed the United States' bid for 58 more days to file a reply brief in an antidumping duty scope ruling case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Filing its opposition on Feb. 9, Sigma said that in a normal case it would have no problem consenting to an extension, but that this is not a normal case. Further delay would prejudice the appellant since the disposition of this case "has ramifications beyond this Court's immediate ruling," given its effect on a separate False Claims Act proceeding over the imports at issue here, Sigma said (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).

The Court of International Trade in a text-only order on Feb. 10 denied plaintiff a motion by Archroma U.S. for leave to file a supplemental complaint since it failed to tell the court whether defendant-intervenor Teh Fong Min (TFM) International Co. consented to the move. The case concerns the International Trade Commission's and Commerce Department's decision to revoke the antidumping duty order on stilbenic optical brightening agents from China and Tawain. Archroma moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint to add two additional allegations over the ITC's move terminating the second sunset review of the AD order. While the plaintiff said it had the support of the U.S., it didn't indicate whether the defendant-intervenor consented, leading the trade court to deny the motion (Archroma v. U.S. Department of Commerce, CIT # 22-00354).

The Commerce Department uses "made-up 'exclusions'" from the scope of certain antidumping and countervailing duty orders that, even if they were "otherwise permitted, which they are not," fail to find support in the authorities the agency relies on, AD petitioner Magnum Magnetics argued in a Feb. 6 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner railed against Commerce's refusal to perform a (k)(3) analysis of the scope even though it relied on a single evidential element from a (k)(3) analysis in its (k)(1) analysis (Magnum Magnetics Corp. v. United States, CIT # 22-00254).

A proposed remand order that would force the International Trade Commission to reconsider a 2021 final injury determination in an antidumping duty case on methionine from Spain and Japan is merely an attempt to have the Commission "reweigh the facts ... to reach a negative determination," the ITC said in a Feb. 9 response to a draft remand order (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00562).

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