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 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).

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).

Exporter Oman Fasteners petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. to take up its case contesting President Donald Trump's expansion of Section 232 duties onto steel and aluminum "derivative" products just days before the high court refused to take up a nearly identical case. The Supreme Court denied importer PrimeSource Building Products' petition for writ of certiorari on Oct. 30 (see 2310300020) (Oman Fasteners v. United States, Sup. Ct. # 23-432).

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 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).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its mandate Oct. 30 in a case on the International Trade Commission's negative injury determination on fabricated structural steel from China. The appellate court said the ITC didn't err by declining to resolve an alleged ambiguity in the definition of the domestic like product scope (see 2309070058). The court added that nothing in the record showed the ITC declined to address the issue, adding that the commission didn't violate the law by deciding that the captive production exception isn't applicable and finding no significant price effects from the imports (Full Member Subgroup of the American Institute of Steel Construction v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-1176).

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).

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).