The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 6 denied a motion from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers to waive the court's redaction limits so as to hide the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the conflict-of-interest proceeding. Judge Evan Wallach said that the coalition's motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355)

The Court of International Trade announced the conclusion of its Audio Streaming Pilot Program, which concluded Feb. 14. It said that after March 31, audio recordings of proceedings before CIT will not be available on the court's YouTube channel.

The Court of International Trade dismissed on April 5 an antidumping duty case from Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. for failing to file a complaint "within the period prescribed by" the U.S. Code. The exporter filed the case to contest the Commerce Department's final results of the 2020-21 administrative review of the AD order on corrosion-resistant steel products from Taiwan. The case was dismissed fir lack of prosecution under CIT rules (Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00052).

Costs incurred by South Korean pipe producer Nexteel's suspended production lines should not have been treated as general and administrative costs by the Commerce Department during an antidumping duty review on welded line pipe from South Korea, Nexteel told the Court of International Trade in its April 5 comments on Commerce's remand results (Nexteel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 20-03898).

Industrial shredders are not classifiable as grinding and crushing tools under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule because the principal function of the machines is shredding or cutting, DOJ argued in its April 5 reply brief. DOJ asked the court to reject Vecoplan's "overly broad and strained interpretation" of "grinding" to fit its shredders into a duty-free classification (Vecoplan v. U.S., CIT # 20-00126).

The Commerce Department erred when it decided that debt-to-equity swaps as part of a corporate workout program for Korean steel manufacturer Dongbu were countervailable subsidies, the company said in an April 6 complaint at the Court of International Trade (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00055).

A request by DOJ to add an alleged "shell company" as a defendant in a fraud and evasion penalty case was denied by the Court of International Trade in an April 4 order (United States v. Zhe "John" Liu, CIT # 22-00215). "Justice does not require acceptance of the amended complaint," Judge Jane Restani said in her order. If allowed, the amended complaint would have added AB MA Distribution Corp. as a defendant alongside Zhe "John" Liu.

A bid for reconsideration of a Court of International Trade decision permitting four U.S. steel companies to intervene in an ITC case (see 2303150072) is an attempt to relitigate the issue, and fails to satisfy the "high" standard for reconsideration, the U.S. steel companies said in a reply brief. The companies, Cleveland-Cliifs, Nucor Corp., Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises, said that exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) failed to point to any specific legal authority for reconsideration of the intervention decision (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. United States, CIT # 22-00349).

The Commerce Department incorrectly applied adverse facts available to a Spanish olive producer and incorrectly applied a standard for determining product demand in its third administrative review of the countervailing duty order on ripe olives from Spain, the Asociación de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa (ASEMESA), Agro Sevilla and Angel Camacho said in their April 4 complaint to the Court of International Trade (Asociación de Exportadores e Industriales de Aceitunas de Mesa; Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S. Coop. And., Angel Camacho Alimentación, S.L., v. U.S., CIT # 23-00076).

The Commerce Department continued to ignore a Court of International Trade remand order when it continued to refuse in its remand results to grant a changed circumstances review for GreenFirst Forest, the company said in its April 3 comments (GreenFirst Forest Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00097).