In a 131-page brief before the Court of International Trade, the U.S. responded Sept. 20 to claims by plaintiffs that its circumvention finding regarding Vietnamese hardwood plywood was flawed. It said again that the Commerce Department’s decision to not pick a mandatory respondent was fair and that adverse facts available had been correctly applied to 20 exporters (Shelter Forest International Acquisition v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00144).

A German exporter of steel used to transport corrosive materials responded Sept. 20 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to a U.S. claim that the Commerce Department's decision to calculate certain of the exporter’s production costs for a review using the items' sales values was rational because the figures “came from Dillinger’s own books and records” (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1498).

The U.S. on Sept. 20 defended its decision on remand to not apply partial adverse facts available against exporter Garg Tube, claiming that the exporter was "fully cooperative," having made multiple attempts to get cost information from an unaffiliated supplier. The government said Commerce couldn't find enough evidence to show that the potential leverage Garg Tube could exert over the supplier supports the use of AFA (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 18 issued its mandate in a countervailing duty case after rejecting a motion for rehearing from the governments of Canada and Quebec and exporter Marmen Energie Inc. The parties asked the court to revisit its decision sustaining the countervailability of a Canadian tax program in the CVD investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada (see 2409120009). The tax program relates to the additional depreciation for certain Class 1 assets. The appellate court said deductions given to Marmen in addition to the standard 4% depreciation rate amount to forgone revenue for the Canadian government (see 2406210031) (Government of Quebec v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1807).

The Court of International Trade granted Sept. 20 an importer’s consent motion to stay for 180 days proceedings brought against it by the U.S. The importer said in its motion, filed Sept. 18, that the parties were working to settle the case, which alleges the importer dodged antidumping duties on tapered roller bearings by misclassifying its entries (United States v. Wanxiang America Corp., CIT # 22-00205).

A petitioner in a review of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain chassis and subassemblies from China withdrew from a case challenging that review after it successfully sought intervention by consent in April (see 2404120032) (Pitts Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00030).

The U.S. on Sept. 18 brought various claims against the two Singaporean businesses that owned and operated the vessel that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, DOJ announced. The lawsuit looks to recover over $100 million in costs the U.S. incurred over the course of its response to the "fatal disaster" and for "clearing the entangled wreck and bridge debris from the navigable channel so the port could reopen" (In the Matter of the Petition of Grace Ocean Private Limited, D. Md. # 24-00941).

The U.S. and exporters led by Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited told the Court of International Trade on Sept. 19 that they reached a settlement in a suit on the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India (Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00512).

A petitioner supported the U.S. argument (see 2408230020) that the Commerce Department correctly calculated a Canadian lumber review respondent’s costs under the transactions disregarded rule. The Sept. 10 reply brief comes as part of a wide-branching case whose parties include the government of Canada (Government of Canada v. United States, CIT Consol. # 23-00187).

The U.S. told the Court of International Trade on Sept. 18 that CBP seized an entry of 7-keto dehydroepiandrosterone at issue in a suit brought by importer UniChem Enterprises (UniChem Enterprises v. United States, CIT # 24-00033).