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

Exporter Nagase & Co. will appeal its case on the first review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan, according to its Sept. 27 notice of appeal at the Court of International Trade. In July, the court sustained the Commerce Department's decision to remove Nagase's compensation for payment expense from its general and administrative expense ratio and said that Nagase failed to exhaust its administrative remedies pertaining to its challenge to Commerce's assessment rate (see 2407300052). The exporter challenged the assessment rate at CIT, despite not raising the issue during the review, claiming that the remand proceeding at the trade court created a new decision for judicial review. The court rejected that claim (Nagase & Co. v. U.S., CiT # 21-00574).

Ljiljana Karadzic asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to set aside its order dismissing her suit challenging her designation on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals List (see 2408070040). Karadzic claimed the D.C. court failed to address her claim that OFAC made an "unreasonable" decision in "declining to remove her from the list" (Ljiljana Zelen Karadzic v. Lisa Palluconi, D.D.C. # 23-01226).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 27 granted the government's motion for a voluntary remand in a case on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy. The U.S. asked for the remand to reconsider the "single-entity treatment" of exporters Dalmine and Silcotub (see 2409260027). During the review, Commerce rejected submissions from the petitioners, led by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, which contained five memos from the Commerce Department from recent cases in which the agency collapsed entities "under analogous facts." The U.S. asked for a remand to reconsider its rejections of these submissions and, by extension, the collapsing analysis (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).

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).

Exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co. said both the government's and petitioner American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance's claims that the Commerce Department didn't need to make an export subsidy adjustment for Ancientree since the company failed to exhaust its administrative remedies "fail to properly contemplate" this requirement (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00262).

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).

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).

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)