The Court of International Trade on Oct. 11 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on polyester textured yarn from Indonesia that slashed exporter PT. Asia Pacific Fibers' AD rate from 26.07% to 9.2%. On remand, Commerce dropped its use of adverse facts available and relied on Asia Pacific's submitted information under protest.

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 11 issued its mandate in an appeal of a case on the countervailing duty investigation on Russian phosphate fertilizers brought by exporters Phosagro PJSC and JSC Apatit. The appeal was previously dismissed by CAFC for failure to prosecute (see 2408200028). A separate appeal of the case from exporter Industrial Group Phosphorite continues at the court, with the company claiming that the Commerce Department contradicted the CVD statute in finding that the Russian government's provision of natural gas was de facto specific (see 2408080058) (The Mosaic Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1595).

A petitioner, a domestic lumber trade group, pushed back against the Commerce Department's ultimate post-remand finding that subsidies received by unaffiliated lumber suppliers were applicable to a few expedited Canadian lumber review respondents, but that those subsidies had no effect on the respondents’ rates. It again alleged that the department had made a “mathematical error” (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT # 19-00122).

A number of Canadian softwood lumber exporters, on one side of a case, and, on the other, defendant-intervenors led by a domestic trade group, filed in total three briefs supporting their respective motions for judgment (see 2404110063) in a case involving the Commerce Department’s alleged misapplication of the transactions disregarded test to increase the costs of a review’s mandatory respondent (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

The Court of International Trade on Oct. 9 denied importer Retractable Technologies' motion to quash a prehearing deposition subpoena from the U.S. in the company's suit against the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's 100% Section 301 rate hike on needles and syringes (Retractable Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 24-00185).

A U.S. steel producer joined the government (see 2409170033) Oct. 9 in defending a Commerce Department finding that the South Korean government’s provision of electricity at lower prices during off-peak hours was de facto specific to an exporter and that South Korea’s cap-and-trade program was countervailable (POSCO v. United States, CIT # 24-00006).

Exporter Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. dismissed its appeal of the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The company brought the suit to contest Commerce's denial of the exporter's byproduct offsets for "fresh broken meat" and "fresh fish waste by-products" (see 2405140061). Can Tho also claimed that Commerce illegally liquidated some of its entries at the "punitive" Vietnam-wide rate instead of its own rate (Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00080).

The United States and an importer of a wearable blanket, similar to a Snuggie, again traded briefs Oct. 10 regarding admissibility of evidence; this time, they specifically covered the issue of whether a CBP employee could testify at an upcoming bench trial (Cozy Comfort Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00173).

The International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association filed its own amicus curiae brief Oct. 8 also supporting ITC in its current appeal of Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden’s refusal to redact a public opinion the agency worries could contain business proprietary information (see 2312200070). Its brief follows another submitted by the Customs and International Trade Bar Association a day prior (see 2410080055) (CVB v. United States, CIT # 21-00288) (CVB, Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).