The Court of International Trade remanded the Commerce Department's finding that exporter Louis Dreyfus wasn't affiliated with its main fresh lemon supplier, leading to a de minimis rate for the company in the antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Brazil. Filing a confidential decision Nov. 7, Judge Claire Kelly gave the parties until Nov. 14 to review the confidential information in the opinion (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

In response to U.S. opposition (see 2410090041) to its motion for judgment (see 2408010044), an aluminum importer again said Nov. 5 that its manufacturer’s production in South Korea was not minor or insignificant (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 6 granted the government's voluntary remand request in a suit on the 2019-20 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. The U.S. asked for the remand to consider the impact of recent CIT cases Global Aluminum Distributor v. U.S. and H&E Home v. U.S. in which CBP reversed its findings of AD/CVD evasion on Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio (see 2209080013) (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00072).

Chinese lidar company Hesai Technology and the U.S. agreed to file new motions for summary judgment in the company's lawsuit against its designation as a Chinese military company after the Pentagon relisted the firm (see 2410230018). Filing a joint status report on Nov. 5 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the parties agreed that their pending cross-motions for judgment are moot and that renewed cross-motions for summary judgment are needed. The parties submitted a proposed schedule that would run from Nov. 8 to mid-February 2025 (Hesai Technology Co. v. Department of Defense, D.D.C. # 24-01381).

Importer Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel argued that the continued application of an injunction on the liquidation of its "Method B" wheel entries is "inequitable," since the plain reading of the injunction shows that the Method B wheels never have been enjoined. Responding to opposition from AD/CVD petitioner Dexstar Wheel Division of Americana Development Inc. to Lionshead's bid to amend the PI at the Court of International Trade, Lionshead added that the amendment wouldn't reverse a CBP decision, as Dexstar claims (Lionshead Specialty Tire and Wheel v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00019).

In a motion for judgment, several Chinese tire exporters argued that the Commerce Department’s calculation of their antidumping duty rate in a recent administrative review misrepresented a mandatory respondent’s costs after Commerce applied a single per-unit expense for all boat freight without adjusting for distance (Giti Tire Global Trading v. U.S., CIT #24-00083).

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

Exporter POSCO argued on Nov. 5 that the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government's provision of electricity below costs is de facto specific is unsupported by substantial evidence. Filing a reply brief at the Court of International Trade, POSCO said Commerce's specificity finding "relies on a random grouping of the steel industry with two other unrelated industries" to find that the steel industry gets a disproportionate amount of the subsidy (POSCO v. United States, CIT # 24-00006).

The Court of International Trade on Nov. 1 dismissed importer Travelway Group International's customs suit for lack of prosecution. The company put its action on the customs case management calendar but failed to remove it or request an extension before time expired. Travelway brought the suit to argue that its backpacks and bags of Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings 4202.92.3120 and 4202.92.3131 qualify for Section 301 exclusions. Counsel for the importer didn't respond to a request for comment (Travelway Group International v. United States, CIT # 22-00312).

For the third time, the U.S. supported the Commerce Department’s redetermination on remand in which it refused to look into South Korea’s provision of off-peak electricity at lower prices (see 2304260018) (Nucor Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).