The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Antidumping duty petitioner Ventura Coastal and respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos traded briefs on the impact and relevance the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the Chevron principle of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).

The U.S. said Aug. 12 that the Commerce Department doesn’t have to consider a ministerial error allegation regarding the final results of a review because the error went unnoticed in the preliminary results (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00262).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The gunmaker Glock, embroiled in a dispute regarding the valuation of an entry of imported pistol kits, said Aug. 12 that the U.S.’s objections to its discovery request -- and its subsequent defenses of those objections before the trade court -- were inaccurate and could indicate that the government doesn’t understand the law (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

A domestic glycine producer brought its case to the Court of International Trade to make up for omissions and errors it made in a scope ruling application, the U.S. claimed Aug. 9. It asked the court to reject the producer’s motion for judgment because it had failed to exhaust its arguments during the administrative process (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

The U.S. told the Court of International Trade that Southwest Airlines isn't entitled to keep Customs Passenger Processing Fees fees paid by its customers on canceled tickets. Filing a cross-motion for judgment on Aug. 13, the government argued that the airline's cancellation policy, which offers travel credits that Southwest then stores as profits if they go uncollected, can't usurp the law, which requires Southwest to "collect the fee and remit the fees collected to the Government" (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).

The South Korean government urged the Court of International Trade to not confuse "disparity" with "disproportionality" in assessing the Commerce Department's de facto specificity finding on the Korean government's alleged provision of electricity below cost. Filing a reply brief on Aug. 12 in a case on the 2021 countervailing duty review on cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from South Korea, the Korean government said the fact that a few industries used a large amount of electricity doesn't establish de facto specificity (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00211).

Exporters Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. and C&U Americas argued in an Aug. 13 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department's differential pricing analysis is not allowed by the statute in antidumping reviews and is only permissible for AD investigations (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT # 24-00025).

In response to attacks from multiple sides, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Aug. 7 to remand the results of its first antidumping duty review on Indonesian mattresses so that it could look into a calculation error alleged by exporters (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00001).