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 reviews, the U.S. said Sept. 27 (Citribel v. U.S., CIT # 24-00010).

Importer 3BTech asked the Court of International Trade to award it attorney's fees in a tariff classification case associated with the company's efforts in resolving the issue of the government's untimely submission of expert declarations. 3BTech said the U.S. willfully violated its disclosure obligations and "blindsided both" the company and the court by not telling either about its plans to work on the declarations when it requested an extension to file its cross-motion for judgment (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).

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).

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).

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).

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 26 ordered the Commerce Department to add exporter The Ancientree Cabinet Co.'s ministerial error allegation to the record of a suit on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Judge Mark Barnett gave Commerce until Oct. 7 to add the allegation to the record (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00262).

Texas-based syringe importer Retractable Technologies took to the Court of International Trade to contest the 100% increase of Section 301 tariffs recently imposed on needles and syringes from China. The complaint is seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the duties, claiming that the tariffs could send the company out of business (Retractable Technologies v. United States, CIT # 24-00185).

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).

An importer of tubing for perforating guns filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings despite the fact that issues of fact still remain unresolved, the U.S. said in a response brief Sept. 24 (G&H Diversified Manufacturing v. U.S., CIT # 22-00130).

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).