A domestic producer of boltless steel shelving units brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on July 11 arguing that the Commerce Department had wrongly refused to use the surrogate it suggested in an antidumping duty investigation (Edsal Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00108).

Antidumping petitioner Lumimove, doing business as WPC Technologies, challenged four elements of the Commerce Department's review of the AD order on strontium chromate from Austria covering entries in 2021-22, in a July 11 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Lumimove v. U.S., CIT # 24-00105).

The U.S. filed its own supplemental brief July 9 in response to a recent Supreme Court decision, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, arguing that an advocacy group and plaintiff in a forced labor case (see 2402230046) lacks standing to bring its suit to the Court of International Trade (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).

The Commerce Department in remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade on July 12 nudged exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals' antidumping duty rate from 10.01% to 10.36% after reversing its decision to grant the company a constructed export price offset (Daikin America v. U.S., CIT # 22-00122).

Customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage continued its bid for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against CBP's move to temporarily suspend Seko from the Entry Type 86 pilot and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, filing a brief in support of the motions at the Court of International Trade on July 10 (Seko Customs Brokerage v. United States, CIT # 24-00097).

Anti-forced labor nonprofit International Rights Advocates on July 11 addressed the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which denied standing to anti-abortion medical associations and individual doctors challenging the FDA's regulation of mifepristone. In fending off the government's claims that IRAdvocates lacks standing to challenge CBP's delay in responding to a withhold release order petition, the advocacy group said its case is "fundamentally distinguishable" from Alliance (International Rights Advocates v. Alejandro Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).

The U.S. is seeking over $1.1 million in unpaid antidumping and countervailing duties plus a $2 million civil penalty against importer Forest Group USA and its alleged successor company, Drapery Hardware USA, the government said in a customs penalty suit filed July 10 (U.S. v. Forest Group USA, CIT # 24-00117).

The Commerce Department reversed its use of adverse facts available against an Indian exporter of welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes but said it was “concerned” that use of unaffiliated, noncooperative suppliers could provide otherwise-cooperative review respondents a “cloak of invisibility” (Garg Tube Export v. U.S., CIT # 21-00169).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 9 granted a joint stipulation of dismissal from the U.S. and exporters led by Risen Energy Co. on the 2017 review of the countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. The government appealed the Court of International Trade decision siding with Risen on the agency's land benchmark calculation and use of adverse facts available pertaining to China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (see 2312200026). Gregory Menegaz, counsel for Risen, said that the U.S. sought the dismissal, suggesting it was due to the "bad facts" for the U.S. in the review (Risen Energy Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 20-03912).