The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed exporter Tau-Ken Temir (TKT) to use 3,135 additional words in its reply brief in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakstan. TKT asked for 14,000 words, twice the original allowance of 7,000, but the appellate court granted it the use of 10,135 words amid opposition from CVD petitioners (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
Each party to a conflict involving a raw Argentinian honey antidumping duty investigation on Dec. 22 accused the opposing side of misunderstanding the case before the court (Nexco v. United States, CIT # 22-00203).
The International Trade Commission should have continued its 2023 injury investigation of aluminum extrusion imports from the Dominican Republic, not ruled the imports were “negligible,” domestic petitioners argued Dec. 22 at the Court of International Trade (U.S. Aluminum Extruders Coalition v. United States, CIT # 23-00270).
The Court of International Trade need not be bound by the a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that said Section 232 duties are "United States import duties" that can be deducted from U.S. price, exporter Nippon Steel Corp. argued in a Dec. 22 reply brief (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, CIT # 21-00533).
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 22 on AD/CVD proceedings:
The International Trade Comission is required by law to reconsider its original 2016 injury and negligibility determinations in a 2021 sunset review of an antidumping duty order on Turkish hot-rolled steel, an exporter argued Dec. 21 (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00351).
The following lawsuit was filed recently at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 26 granted a request from the U.S. for 3,000 additional words for a reply brief in a case involving use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping and two accounting items. The government said each of the three matters raised in the case is "complex and technical in nature" (see 2310250039), creating "good cause" for the additional words (Marmen v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).
The Court of International Trade "should not entertain" importer Greentech Energy Solution's challenge to CBP's extension of the liquidation deadline for the 19 entries at issue since it doesn't appear in Greentech's amended complaint, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief Dec. 22, the government said that even if the claim was in the complaint, the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear it since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP to first challenge the decision (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
Antidumping duty petitioner the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group argued in a new lawsuit at the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department "improperly calculated" exporter Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret's duty drawback adjustment (The Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group v. United States, CIT # 23-00251).