Exporters Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. filed a stipulation of dismissal in the companies' case on the 2014 review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China. The exporters argued against the Commerce Department's decision to treat Jangho's curtain wall and window wall units as subject merchandise and the claim that Jangho received countervailable subsidies pertaining to the provision of glass (Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. v. United States, CIT # 17-00017).

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade for a voluntary remand in an Enforce and Protect Act case to consider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's key decision in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. In that decision, the appellate court said that CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not providing it access to the confidential business information in the case (see 2307270038) (Phoenix Metal Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00048).

The Commerce Department correctly stuck by its benchmark picks for the land program and the aluminum plate, sheet and strip program in a lawsuit on the 2016-17 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on aluminum foil from China, DOJ said in its Oct. 31 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00133).

The Commerce Department's use of the differential pricing methodology, including the Cohen's d test, failed to adhere to basic statistical assumptions, Canadian lumber exporter Resolute FP Canada said in its Oct. 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Resolute asked the court to remand Commerce's calculation of a 6.26% rate for non-selected companies in its 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada to the agency for reconsideration (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00206)

The Commerce Department flipped its position in an antidumping duty case, finding that a constructed export price offset was not warranted for AD respondents Husteel and Hyundai in the 2019-20 AD review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Issuing its remand results Oct. 31 at the Court of International Trade, the agency said its per unit analysis showed the home market level of trade is "not at a more advanced stage of distribution than the" level of trade of the constructed export price level of either respondent (Wheatland Tube v. U.S., CIT # 22-00160).

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 31 ordered the clerk of the Court of International Trade to transfer samples of pipe conduit to the appellate court in a customs case on importer Shamrock Building Materials' electrical conduit entries. In the case, the trade court said the conduits cannot insulate the base metal from the electrical current or the heat in the wire it surrounds, barring classification under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 8547. Shamrock is now arguing at the Federal Circuit that the heading, which covers "electric conduit tubing lined with insulating material," is the proper home for the goods (see 2309250037). The appellate court said the pipe conduit samples "may aid the court in its understanding of the issues in this case" (Shamrock Building Materials v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1648).

Antidumping duty respondent Assan Aluminyum Sanayi added supplemental authorities to its case regarding the antidumping duty review on aluminum foil from Turkey, it said in its Oct. 30 notice at the Court of International Trade (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 21-00616).

The Commerce Department illegally deducted Section 301 China tariff duties from exporter Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co.'s U.S. price in the 2020-21 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from China, Fufeng said in its Oct. 30 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. In addition, Fufeng argued that Commerce unlawfully valued the company's energy factors of productions and coal classifications, which Fufeng said skewed the dumping margins (Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00068).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 30 order granted the U.S. motion to treat certain parts of the record as "highly sensitive documents" in a case on exporter Ninestar Corp.'s addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Judge Gary Katzmann agreed to the request following a dispute on whether to allow the government to amend the protective order in the suit. The government argued that the documents, if revealed, could "'pose a danger of physical harm to certain persons" (see 2310300041) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).