The Commerce Department erred in picking Germany as the comparison market for determining antidumping duty respondent Prochamp's normal value in the AD investigation on mushrooms from the Netherlands, petitioner Giorgio Foods told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. Giorgio contested the four bases on which Commerce made its decision to use Germany as the comparison market, arguing that each isn't backed by substantial evidence (Giorgio Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-2090).
The Commerce Department "exceeded its legal authority" in an anti-circumvention case "by imposing a blanket origin finding" on aluminum wire and cable exporter Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable when it barred the company from taking part in the agency's program for certifying that an exporter's inputs weren't of Chinese origin, Tanghenam argued in a Nov. 11 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Tanghenam Electric Wire & Cable v. United States, CIT # 25-00049).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted amendments to seven of its practice rules and three of its practice notes following a comment period (see 2509180010). The changes, which affect Rules 15, 25, 30, 32, 39, 46 and 47, will take effect on Dec. 1.
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
A group of seven importers, led by Innovative Eyewear, is the filer of another lawsuit challenging the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, following the Supreme Court's oral argument in the lead cases on the issue in which many of the justices appeared skeptical about the validity of such tariffs. The lawsuit is the fourth of its kind to be filed at the Court of International Trade in the wake of the oral argument as importers go to court to ensure they have access to refunds should the high court strike down President Donald Trump's reciprocal and fentanyl trafficking tariffs (see 2511060015) (Innovative Eyewear v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00247).
VFC Solutions, a sanctioned Cypriot investment firm, filed a lawsuit against the Office of Foreign Assets Control for denying its petition to be delisted from the Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), arguing that the agency acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" by denying the petition based on "speculation and conjecture."
The Commerce Department unlawfully used "zeroing" in calculating respondent YDD Corporation's antidumping margin in the AD investigation on ferrosilicon from Kazakhstan, YDD argued in a Nov. 7 motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The respondent said Commerce has a "long-established practice of not using zeroing," yet the agency "departed from this practice" when calculating the company's AD rate "without providing any explanation for this change in practice" (YDD Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. # 25-00100).
Three Chinese researchers were charged on Nov. 5 with conspiracy to smuggle biological materials into the U.S. and for making false statements to CBP officers, DOJ announced. The individuals, Xu Bai, Fengfan Zhang and Zhiyong Zhang, were all research scholars with J-1 visas conducting research at the University of Michigan laboratory of researcher Xianzhong Xu, DOJ said.
The Court of International Trade on Nov. 7 granted importer Danfoss' motion to reopen its case seeking exclusions from Section 301 China tariffs on its scroll compressors and scroll-type compressors after the court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Judge Claire Kelly vacated the dismissal and said the case will remain on the customs case management calendar until Oct. 31, 2026 (Danfoss LLC v. United States, CIT # 23-00214).
Exporter Pipe & Piling Supplies on Nov. 7 said it would appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision dismissing the company's case against the 2022-23 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (see 2509080047). The trade court said Pipe & Piling failed to notify the other interested parties of its lawsuit as required by the USMCA, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(3)(B), adding that this requirement is a jurisdictional one (Pipe & Piling Supplies v. United States, Slip Op. 25-119, CIT # 24-00211).