The Commerce Department on remand at the Court of International Trade reduced the antidumping duty rate for respondent Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) from 154.07% to zero percent in the 2019-20 review of the AD order on xanthan gum from China. The agency reviewed its use of adverse facts available against the company due to the exporter's explanation that its U.S. duties and Section 301 duties are "subject to a possible recalculation" (Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00069).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 28 issued its mandate in a case on whether Australian antidumping duty respondent BlueScope Steel (AIS) reimbursed its affiliated U.S. importer, BlueScope Steel Americas, for AD. In the decision, the appellate court said AIS didn't reimburse its affiliate, ruling it would have been "unreasonable" for the exporter to include the AD in the price charged to the importer because the exporter itself wasn't responsible for the duties (see 2404040020). The case concerned the 2017-18 review of the AD order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia (U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2078).

The Court of International Trade on May 23 entered a default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner Doris Cheng due to their failure to file an answer to the government's complaint accusing them of avoiding antidumping and Section 301 duties on uncovered mattress innersprings from China (United States v. Rayson Global, CIT # 23-00201).

The U.S. on May 24 pushed back against a petitioner’s claim that the Commerce Department allowed an exporter too much leeway in the first antidumping duty review of forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00191).

Petitioners and mattress exporters filed two motions for judgment in two similar cases, both challenging the results of the 2020-2022 antidumping duty review of mattresses from Indonesia. The exporters said that their constructed value had been miscalculated, while the petitioner argued that the exporters’ products were not mattress toppers and didn't fit under that exclusion (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00001; Brooklyn Bedding v. U.S., CIT # 24-00002).

Exporters of stainless steel flanges from India are close to a settlement with the government to avoid a remand in a case involving an antidumping duty review in which the Commerce Department selected only one respondent (Kisaan Die Tech Private Limited v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 21-00512).

Worthington Industries, a domestic producer, was granted permission by the court to intervene as a defendant in a case regarding the antidumping duty review on steel propane cylinders from Thailand (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT # 24-00064).

CBP “without explanation” reclassified imported nitrile rubber gloves as non-medical gloves and subjected them to a 3% duty rate, despite the gloves meeting all FDA requirements for medical gloves, their importer said in a complaint filed at the Court of International Trade May 22 (SW Technologies v. U.S., CIT # 23-00119).

In a 2022 case brought against both CBP and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, plaintiff Curia Global Inc., a drug development company, once again amended its complaint to remove one of its family companies, Curia Wisconsin, because “the entity is in the process of changing ownership and no longer wishes to join in this action" (Curia Global Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00247).

A hardwood plywood importer sought dismissal of its case in the Court of International Trade after winning a similar one April 8 (Liberty Woods International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 20-00143).