While antidumping duty respondent Goodluck India Limited does not oppose DOJ's motion to partially dismiss its case, it wants the Court of International Trade to find jurisdiction for its case under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction. Responding to the partial dismissal motion in an April 22 reply brief, Goodluck used the opportunity to also characterize the U.S. government's statement of facts as "inaccurate" (Goodluck India Limited v. United States, CIT #22-00024).

The Court of International Trade should not grant a stay in a consolidated antidumping matter pending resolution of a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since the impact of this case is "speculative at best," DOJ said in an April 21 reply brief. Further, the stay should be denied since the Federal Circuit case, Stupp Corp. v. United States, may only affect two legal issues in the case led by exporter Koehler Paper, leaving six issues unaffected, DOJ argued (Matra Americas v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00632).

Producing a large volume of evidence does not establish the relevance or persuasiveness of such evidence, plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in an April 19 brief blasting the Commerce Department's evidentiary record in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty exclusion case. Merely handing over a list of record information does not substitute for an explanation of how the evidence supports the exclusion finding, AEFTC said (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00253).

Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Stanceu granted a motion from importer Nutricia North America that asked to reopen discovery to replace the company's expert witness in an ongoing case regarding classification of infant formulas (Nutricia North America v. United States, CIT #16-00008). Nutricia asked for the record to be reopened after it discovered that its witness, Dr. Joel Lavine, was convicted of sexually abusing an adult former patient. With the order from Judge Timothy Stanceu, Nutricia will replace Lavine with Dr. Jonah Essers.

The defendant-intervenors in an antidumping duty case, Insteel Wire Products Co., Sumiden Wire Products Corp. and Wire Mesh Corp., signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results at the Court of International Trade applying partial adverse facts available. The remand results accepted certain of Turkish exporter Celik Halat's questionnaire responses that it originally denied due to being filed 21 minutes late. The result dropped Commerce's use of total AFA to partial AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. United States, CIT #21-00045).

The Commerce Department erred in its de jure and de facto specificity findings in a forged steel fluid end blocks countervailing duty case on climate change compliance programs from the German government and the EU, exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen argued in an April 20 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The agency did not prove that the alleged subsidies were expressly limited to an enterprise or industry, precluding a de jure specificity finding, the brief said (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GMBH v. United States, CIT #21-00080).

The Commerce Department illegally assigned an adverse facts available rate to mandatory respondent East Sea Seafoods Joint Stock Company in an antidumping duty review since the company stopped participating in the review, exporter Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company said in its April 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Seeing as Green Farms' separate rate was found via a simple average of the AFA rate and the other respondent's "zero" rate, this separate rate should also be found to be illegally based on AFA as it does not accurately reflect Green Farms' dumping level, the brief said (Green Farms Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, CIT #22-00092).

The Court of International Trade should rehear its decision on whether a Warehousing Agreement between two related companies sufficed as a lease or similar use agreement since it failed to address one of the U.S.'s arguments that the two entities are not separate but merely a single entity, DOJ argued in an April 20 motion for rehearing (SGS Sports v. United States, CIT #18-00128).

Mixes of frozen fruits should be classified as food preparations of heading 2106, rather than in the heading in Chapter 8 for fruit deemed to impart the mixture's essential character, an importer said in a motion for summary judgment filed with the Court of International Trade April 18 (Nature's Touch Frozen Foods (West) Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00131).

The Commerce Department reversed course on 45 Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion bids, granting the requests on remand at the Court of International Trade. Submitting the results of its voluntary remand request in an April 18 submission, Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security granted importer Mirror Metals' exclusion requests, finding that the bids should be granted after looking at whether the relevant steel article could be made at a sufficient level in the U.S. (Mirror Metals v. United States, CIT #21-00144).