The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Chinese cartridge exporter Ninestar Corp. told the Court of International Trade in a July 26 reply brief that it's not attempting to "exhaust its remedies" before the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force by requesting removal from the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Responding to the government's bid to dismiss the case, Ninestar said it's merely asking FLETF to "take a new agency action, based on a different legal standard and a different evidentiary record" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

In the wake of Loper Bright, the U.S. and two defendant-intervenors raised three different sets of arguments July 25 in defense of the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the statute governing sunset reviews. All three opposed a plaintiff softwood lumber exporter’s claim that its case had been substantially strengthened by the demise of the Chevron doctrine (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00095).

The Commerce Department improperly used an invoice date as the date of sale of goods in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete rebar from Turkey, exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret told the Court of International Trade. Filing a motion for judgment on July 23, Kaptan said Commerce should have used the contract date as the date of sale (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 24-00018).

The U.S. and Amcor Flexibles Singen, an aluminum foil exporter, filed a joint status report to Court of International Trade Judge Timothy Reif regarding 14 classification cases dating from 2015 to 2018 (Amcor Flexibles Singen v. U.S., CIT # 15-00243, et al.).

A glycine exporter moved for judgment July 23 in a case charging that the Commerce Department unreasonably rejected its allegedly “duplicative” scope ruling application after a previous request, which the exporter argued lacked key information, resulted in a ruling it disagreed with (Deer Park Glycine v. U.S., CIT # 24-00016).

The Commerce Department wrongly called its own decision memoranda in other, similar proceedings “new factual information” that could be, and had been, “untimely raised,” a petitioner said in a July 22 brief -- six months after that petitioner relied on them in its own administrative filings (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. U.S., CIT # 24-00039).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The U.S. objected to a Vietnamese pipe exporter's argument that the Commerce Department had arbitrarily rejected its questionnaire response for a barely missed deadline, saying the exporter had been given four deadline extensions and was repeatedly told by Commerce officials to file early (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00248).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 24 denied exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co.'s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court's decision to include dual-stenciled pipe in the scope of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2181).