No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.

"Virtually every substantial issue" raised by plaintiffs in an antidumping duty challenge led by Ellwood City Forge Company still remains following a voluntary remand proceeding from the Commerce Department, the plaintiffs argued in a revised March 11 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. In particular, Ellwood argued Commerce's remand left unaddressed the issue of Commerce's failure to conduct verification in the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel end blocks from India (Ellwood City Forge Company v. United States, CIT #21-00007).

CBP's finding that Skyview Cabinet evaded antidumping and countervailing duties on wooden cabinets and vanities from China was unsupported by evidence and based on hearsay, and improperly added full supply chain assessment requirements, the importer told the Court of International Trade in a March 10 complaint (Skyview Cabinet USA v. United States, CIT #22-00080).

The risk of court-annexed mediation in an antidumping duty case "far outweighs the benefit," defendant-intervenor GEO Specialty Chemicals said in a March 14 brief opposing plaintiff Nagase & Co.'s bid for mediation, telling the trade court that it "vigorously" opposes Nagase's claim that an alleged error in Nakase's AD rate is easily correctable (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

The Court of International Trade denied on March 15 importer Root Sciences' bid for reconsideration of a decision that CBP's seizure of drug paraphernalia precluded a deemed exclusion of the merchandise, removing the case from the trade court's jurisdiction. Root argued that the decision created a paradox, leaving the jurisdictional status of the case in limbo. Judge Gary Katzmann held that Root's motion "amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with the court's reasoning on matters fully litigated."

The Court of International Trade in an order dated March 10 dropped its mask mandate for individuals seeking to enter the New York courthouse. The decision follows a change in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy. Unvaccinated individuals will still be subjected to COVID-19 screening, including an inquiry into recent COVID-19 exposure and a temperature check, the court said. No one feeling sick may enter the building regardless of vaccination status, the court added. It also said presiding judges may institute masking and other COVID-19 prevention steps. The measures took effect March 11.

The Court of International Trade sent back the Commerce Department's remand results in a case on the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India, in a March 11 confidential order. In a letter on the opinion, Judge Claire Kelly announced her intention to release the public version of the opinion on March 21, giving litigants until March 18 to review any bracketed information (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT #20-00026).

CBP erred when making its finding that importer CEK Group evaded the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from China by transshipping them through Thailand, CEK said in a March 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Among other things, CEK alleged in its 12-count complaint that CBP failed to address all of the arguments raised by the importer, made its decision without substantial evidence of transshipment and improperly refused to grant CEK access to business confidential information in the case (CEK Group v. United States, CIT #22-00082).

The Court of International Trade remanded an antidumping duty evasion case, in a March 11 order for CBP to fully consider the record. The agency requested the remand after it found out plaintiff Norca Industrial Company was not privy to documents relating to a third-party's visit to a Vietnamese manufacturer's production site. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves limited the remand to the issue of the whole record and not the other issues raised by Norca.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a March 11 order that the Commerce Department did not properly support its position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea. Finding that three of Commerce's five reasons for finding a PMS were not backed by enough evidence, the Federal Circuit upheld the Court of International Trade's identical ruling. The appellate court also remanded Commerce's differential pricing analysis -- used to uncover "masked" dumping -- for relying on a statistical test that did not fulfill certain conditions to properly run the test.