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

A Belgium citric acid exporter isn’t alleging any flaw in its treatment in a review -- it’s just trying to challenge the settled, and reasonable, Commerce Department practice of never using quarterly cost allocation analyses for conversion costs in review, the U.S. said Sept. 27 (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 30 granted a pair of voluntary dismissal motions from importer Travelway Group International on its two import classification cases. Both cases sought Section 301 exclusions for its backpack and bag entries of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131. Counsel for Travelway didn't immediately respond to request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT #s 22-00313, 23-00057).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 30 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case brought by importer PrimeSource Building Products and exporter Cheng Ch International Co. The court held in its decision that the Commerce Department's use of only adverse facts available rates to set the rate for the non-individually examined respondents in antidumping proceedings, known as the "expected method," isn't presumptively unreasonable (see 2408070020) (PrimeSource Building Products v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2128).

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).

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).

Petitioners pushed back Sept. 26 against a Court of International Trade remand order (see 2405310043) that resulted in the Commerce Department lowering a Brazilian honey exporter’s antidumping duty resulting from an investigation from 83.72% to 10.52% (see 2408270029) (Apiario Diamante Comercial Exportadora v. United States, CIT # 22-00185).

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).

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).