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

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).

Antidumping duty petitioners led by Brooklyn Bedding argued on Sept. 25 that foldable mattresses from exporters PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia and PT Grantec Jaya Indonesia don't qualify for an exception to the AD order on mattresses from Indonesia for multifunctional furniture (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00001).

Plaintiffs in a case regarding the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood mouldings and millwork from China filed two briefs Sept. 25 with the Court of International Trade, again arguing that, one, one respondent’s trading company should have been entitled to the same separate rate as the respondent itself, and, two, that the Commerce Department illegitimately chose to end its review of another respondent early and instead use adverse facts available (China Cornici Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #s 23-000216, -00217).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Sept. 24 recaptioned an appeal of an antidumping duty case after importer Worldwide Distribution said it no longer wishes to take part in the case, given that it failed to file a notice of appeal (see 2409160010). As a result, the court lifted the stay in the case and gave exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container 60 days to file its opening brief. Sahamitr originally brought suit to challenge the 2019-20 review of the AD order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand. The Court of International Trade said Sahamitr failed to undermine Commerce's finding that the company's monthly-based calculation of its sales costs were distortive (see 2405020029) (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-2043).

The U.S. on Sept. 24 moved to dismiss mattress importer Pay Less Here's suit on the International Trade Commission's critical circumstances finding on mattresses from Burma, saying the company failed to file an entry of appearance in the proceeding. The government said that, as a result of this failure, the company isn't an "interested party" that can challenge the determination at the Court of International Trade (Pay Less Here v. U.S., CIT # 24-00152).

In a post-oral argument submission Sept. 20, Chinese exporters of xanthan gum focused on the government’s claim that they had waived their challenge to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule categorization of bituminous coal in a review by failing to meet the exhaustion requirement (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068)

Importer Omni Distributors on Sept. 24 voluntarily dismissed its customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its hand sanitizer imports. Omni Distributors said the goods, classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3824.99.9297, should qualify for Section 301 exclusions under secondary subheading 9903.88.45. Counsel for the importer declined to comment (Omni Distributors v. United States, CIT # 22-00250).

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

The International Trade Commission on Sept. 23 opposed exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari's (Erdemir's) motion to consolidate three of its appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. # 24-2242).