The Court of International Trade in a March 25 confidential order granted motions to treat submissions from the U.S. and Chinese exporter Ninestar as highly sensitive documents in Ninestar's case contesting its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The submissions pertained to the exporter's motion to unseal and unredact the record, which argued that the company needs access to the information in the proceeding to adequately defend itself (see 2403220035) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
A Turkish hot-rolled steel exporter March 18 defended its appeal over the currency that “controls” its products’ pricing against opposition by the U.S. and domestic petitioners, saying the petitioners had done their math wrong (Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1158).
A group of U.S. mattress makers, led by Brooklyn Bedding, opposed exporter CVB's request for a 60-day extension in which to file its opening brief in an injury suit at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Only consenting to a 14-day extension, the mattress makers said CVB "has failed to show good cause exists" for a longer extension since the trade court's decision in the suit was issued over 90 days ago (CVB v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1504).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Judge Evan Wallach on March 25 deferred exporter Oman Fasteners' motion to dismiss an interlocutory appeal in an antidumping duty case to the three-judge merits panel assigned to the case. The appeal came from petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire from the Court of International Trade's decision to impose an injunction on the Commerce Department's AD cash deposits on Oman Fasteners' steel nail imports. Oman Fasteners moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming that since the injunction is no longer active since Commerce completed the next review of the AD order, there's no live controversy (see 2401300069). The trade court granted the injunction after finding the agency abused its discretion in setting a 154.33% AD rate on the exporter for narrowly missing a filing deadline (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1661).
Chinese exporter Ninestar Corp. on March 22 moved to treat its submission at the Court of International Trade in support of its motion to unseal and unredact the record as a "highly sensitive document" in its case contesting its listing on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The exporter said it doesn't waive any claim that certain parts of the record "should eventually be unsealed," nor does it waive any argument that its requested documents shouldn't be treated as confidential information under the court's protective order (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
Two plaintiffs said in a March 18 filing that they are voluntarilydismissing their complaints in a case regarding a Commerce Department Enforce and Protect Act covered merchandise inquiry (see 2403200072), saying the issue they raised had become simply an "academic" question (Tube Forgings of America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).
The Court of International Trade on March 21 sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in a countervailing duty case in which it "changed the way it calculated ocean freight." Since no party objected to the new calculation, Judge Jane Restani sustained the remand.
Importer Maple Leaf Marketing filed a stipulation of dismissal in its customs suit on the classification of boronized steel tubing. Before the dismissal, the case served as a forum for the government to argue that it could assert counterclaims in customs cases. The U.S. moved to redesignate its counterclaim as a defense, which the Court of International Trade granted after finding that nowhere in Congress' scheme on the classification of goods does the legislative body explicitly let the government assert a counterclaim challenging CBP's classification (see 2306140053). The original counterclaim said that the steel tubes, originally classified by CBP as duty-free U.S. goods returned after repairs, are subject to Section 301 tariffs and correctly classified as unfinished steel tubes (Maple Leaf Marketing v. United States, CIT # 20-03839).