The Court of International Trade entered partial judgment in a case over the antidumping duty investigation into Chinese quartz surface product in an Oct. 8 order. Having issued a partial decision in September, Judge Leo Gordon said that the remaining issue under litigation is separate from the already-ruled aspects of the case. In September, Gordon upheld the Commerce Department's decision to pick Mexico over Malaysia as a surrogate country for the purposes of calculating normal value in the AD case (see 2109270059). The remaining issue, brought by M S International, concerns whether Commerce had the requisite industry support to initiate the investigation -- an issue for which the court just sided with Commerce in a separate antidumping case (see 2110080035).

The Court of International Trade does in fact have jurisdiction to hear a case over denied attorney access to confidential information in a safeguard proceeding at the International Trade Commission, counsel for LG Electronics told the court in an Oct. 6 reply brief. The denial of access to the proceeding constitutes a final agency action, making the denial eligible for judicial review, the brief said (LG Electronics USA, Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT 21-00520).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Oct. 8 in a case involving the Commerce Department's use of the "Cohen's d test" to discover targeted or masked dumping. The mandate led the Court of International Trade to remand the case to Commerce to bring its final results in an antidumping investigation into welded line pipe from South Korea in line with the Federal Circuit's opinion. The appellate court held that Commerce must further explain its use of this statistical test when using its differential pricing analysis since Commerce may not be adhering to certain assumptions required to perform the Cohen's d test (see 2107150032). A proposed briefing schedule decided by all parties is due by Oct. 28 (Stupp Corporation et al. v. U.S., et al., CAFC # 2020-1857).

Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) challenges certain elements of the Commerce Department's third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan covering entries in 2018-19, in an Oct. 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade.

Lyke Industrial Tool's cupwheels are not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from China, the Court of International Trade held in an Oct. 7 order. After conducting an analysis of the "(k)(2)" factors following an initial remand from CIT, which included comparing the physical characteristics, end uses, consumer expectations and methods of advertising for cupwheels and diamond sawblades, the Commerce Department held that the cupwheels could not be held in the scope of the AD order.

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

The Commerce Department was wrong to include dual-stenciled pipe imported as line pipe within the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the Court of International Trade said in an Oct. 6 order, remanding the scope ruling to Commerce for further consideration. Seeing as there were no Thai manufacturers who even made line pipe at the time of the AD order, the ITC therefore never made an injury determination on line pipe from Thailand. This led Judge Stephen Vaden to hold that line pipes are excluded from the scope of the order.

There isn't a need to grant an extension of time for the U.S. to respond to the American Apparel and Footwear Association's motion to file an amicus brief in a customs case since the Department of Justice hasn't given a reason why there should be an extension, the association said in an Oct. 6 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Also, AAFA argued, there's no reason the brief should not be accepted, and the defendant hasn't offered any reason it would be.

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

A host of mattress companies in two Court of International Trade cases cited an Oct. 4 order from Judge Timothy Stanceu in their bid for an open-ended preliminary injunction against the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Vietnam. The order said that the open-ended injunction was warranted since the plaintiff in that case showed a likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction was not issued in that way (see 2108230059). The U.S. had opposed the open-ended injunction, instead pushing for the injunction to merely run until the end of the first administrative review. The U.S. echoed this opposition in the two cases over the AD mattress order, arguing that if needed the injunction could be extended beyond the end of the first administrative review.