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 Commerce Department should find that there was a gap in the official record and apply adverse inferences to German thermal paper exporter Koehler if the case is remanded, U.S. thermal paper makers Domtar and Appvion said in their Oct. 26 answers to the Court of International Trade's questions before upcoming oral arguments, scheduled for Nov. 1 (Matra Americas v. U.S., CIT # 21-00632).

The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

The Court of International Trade shouldn't reinstate the Commerce Department's exclusion of four Canadian lumber exporters as part of the countervailing duty investigation on softwood lumber products from Canada, the CVD petitioner said in an Oct. 27 brief at the Court of International Trade. The petitioner, the committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations, said that the four exporters' "mere assertions" that changed circumstances exist, warranting the retroactive exclusion of the companies, is not enough (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. United States, CIT # 19-00122).

The U.S. asked the Court of International Trade to treat "certain portions of the administrative record as highly sensitive documents" in a case against Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp.'s addition to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. Following a spat on whether to allow the government to amend the protective order in the suit, the U.S. is now asking for certain protections for information on the record since, if revealed, the information "could pose a danger of physical harm to certain persons" (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

Canadian exporter Tolko Industries, a non-individually examined company in the 2021 review of the antidumping duty order on Canadian softwood lumber, said its 6.2% dumping rate was not backed by substantial evidence. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 27, Tolko said that since its rate was derived from rates for the two mandatory respondents which themselves were not supported by substantial evidence, its rate is illegal (Tolko Industries v. United States, CIT # 23-00204).

The U.S. asked for a voluntary remand at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Enforce and Protect Act case to discuss the legal effects of the Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S. decision. In Royal Brush, the appellate court said CBP violated an EAPA respondent's due process rights by not granting it access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038). Importer Skyview Cabinet USA consented to the motion, while the petitioner, MasterBrand Cabinets, took no position (Skyview Cabinet USA v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-2318).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in an Oct. 26 order denied ocean freight carrier Tonzip Maritime's request to attach commodity trading firm Coral Energy's bank accounts supposedly held by garnishee ING Bank to secure its claims against Coral Energy in the U.K. High Court of Justice. In the U.K., Tonzip is claiming that Coral Energy breached an agreement under which the energy company chartered a Tonzip-owned crude oil tanker for a voyage from Russia to Turkey (Tonzip Maritime v. Coral Energy, E.D. Cal. # 2:23-02283).

A SpaceX lawsuit challenging an export control-related hiring discrimination case against the company would succeed if not for a "late-breaking development" in the form of an interim final rule imposed "seemingly in direct response" to SpaceX's preliminary injunction motion, the company argued. SpaceX said that even the government admits that it would lose the case without the interim final rule, which SpaceX told a federal district court in Brownsville, Texas, is illegal (Space Exploration Technologies v. Carol Bell, S.D. Tex. # 23-00137).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 25 text-only order denied as moot the renewed motion by the U.S. to stay proceedings in an Enforce and Protect Act case, pending final resolution of a related matter. The present case, Far East American v. U.S., concerns an antidumping and countervailing duty evasion determination on two-ply hardwood products from China. The government asked for a stay while another case brought by Far East American went through the trade court. CIT ruled on that one in August, finding that the Commerce Department properly excluded hardwood plywood made by Vietnam Finewood using two-ply panels imported into Vietnam from China from the scope of the orders (see 2308220033). The stay in Far East American's second case was dropped following the ruling (Far East American v. U.S., CIT # 22-00213).