The Court of International Trade on Oct. 29 sustained the Commerce Department's 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on strontium chromate from Austria. Judge Joseph Laroski rejected petitioner Lumimove's claims against Commerce's findings that respondent Habich wasn't affiliated with its North American sales agent and that normal value should be calculated using Habich's slaves to Mexico. Regarding the agency's affiliation finding, Laroski said that Lumimove's claims boiled down to: "Commerce should have asked Habich different questions." The judge rejected this assertion, finding that the agency "acted reasonably by consulting the relevant legal framework in structuring its inquiry into affiliation," adapting its questions to Lumimove's concerns, conducting a "robust verification" and "distilling the law and facts that informed its conclusion."

The Commerce Department improperly found that antidumping duty respondent Galvasid received but didn't report additional revenues for freight and insurance for its U.S. sales in the AD investigation on corrosion-resistant steel products from Mexico, Galvasid argued in an Oct. 27 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Galvasid said the agency's application of partial adverse facts available to the company's "reported U.S. gross unit prices to account for the allegedly unreported revenues" was arbitrary and capricious (Galvasid v. United States, CIT # 25-00234).

The Court of International Trade approved amendments to two of its rules and various of its forms on Oct. 23, the court announced. The court altered Rules 84 and 87. Rule 87, which previously was titled "Forms," is now titled "Civil Rules Emergency" to reflect changes to the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure.

Aluminum printing plate producer Eastman Kodak agreed with the International Trade Commission that exporter Fujifilm’s U.S.-produced products had been injured by Fujifilm's imports (see 2510240049) (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00251).

The Commerce Department erred in finding that importer IPG Photonics' heat sink models don't fit under the explicit exclusion under the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China for "finished heat sinks," IPG argued in an Oct. 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade (IPG Photonics v. United States, CIT # 25-00212).

CBP unlawfully excluded two entries of Camel Energy's battery imports for being made with forced labor in China's Xinjiang province, Camel Energy argued in a complaint at the Court of International Trade. The importer said it's not on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List, and the batteries in its entries weren't "mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part using forced labor in the" Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) (Camel Energy v. United States, CIT # 25-00230).

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

An exporter that has domestic production facilities can be injured by its own imports, the International Trade Commission argued in an Oct. 20 response brief to aluminum plate manufacturer Fujifilm Corp. (Fujifilm North America Corp. v. United States, CIT # 24-00251).

Three conservation advocacy groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Animal Welfare Institute, moved to intervene in a case from a group of seafood product companies against the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings of 240 fisheries across 46 nations, which will lead to an import ban from the fisheries. The advocacy groups also moved the Court of International Trade for an expedited consideration of their intervention motion so that they can take part in the court's expedited consideration of the seafood companies' motion for a preliminary injunction against the comparability findings (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).

Mexican steel wire exporter Deacero argued again Oct. 20 that the Commerce Department shouldn't treat circumvention inquiries involving third-country processing the same as those involving U.S. processing (Deacero v. United States, CIT # 24-00212).