The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 20 order granted the U.S. request for 55 more days to file its reply brief in the massive Section 301 litigation, despite an objection from the plaintiff-appellants, led by HMTX Industries. The government's reply brief is now due Dec. 21 following the extension, which was the second of its kind following a 60-day extension (HMTX Industries v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).

A suit filed to contest the classification of photoresists and other chemical products should be tossed because the complaint was filed more than nine years after the denial of protests, DOJ said in an Oct. 20 motion to dismiss at the Court of International Trade (Tokyo Ohka Kogyo America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00371).

The International Trade Commission has discretion on when to cumulate imports in injury determinations, the commission said in its Oct. 19 opposition memo at the Court of International Trade. That discretion extended to the commission's decision to cumulate imports from Australia with other shipments in its sunset review of the antidumpingm duty orders on steel goods from Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey and the U.K., it said (BlueScope Steel v. U.S., CIT # 22-00353).

The Court of International Trade should partially end a case for one of two plaintiffs as its claims have already been ruled on by the court, German exporter and consolidated plaintiff Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech said in its Oct. 19 motion for partial judgment (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00158).

Kazakh silicon metal exporter Tau-Ken Temir (TKT) and the Kazakh Ministry of Trade and Integration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 7,000 more words for its reply brief in a case on the countervailing duty investigation on silicon metal from Kazakhstan. The exporter and the government agency said they need double its current word count to respond to the reply briefs filed by the U.S. and the petitioners, which collectively are over 20,000 words (Tau-Ken Temir v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel Co. will appeal an August Court of International Trade decision sustaining the Commerce Department's finding the South Korean government's free provision of port usage rights at the Port of Incheon provided Hyundai with a countervailable benefit. According to the notice of appeal, Hyudai will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the opinion, the trade court said the agency reasonably found it should conduct a revenue forgone analysis instead of a less than adequate remuneration analysis since Hyundai's non-payment of port usage fees involved a type of financial contribution via forgone revenue instead of the provision of services (see 2308220031) (Hyundai Steel v. United States, CIT # 21-00536).

The Commerce Department correctly found that exporter KG Dongbu Steel's debt-to-equity restructurings provided a countervailable benefit, DOJ said in an Oct. 20 reply at the Court of International Trade. Dongbu is challenging the fifth countervailing duty review of corrosion-resistant steel products from Korea and took issue with Commerce's findings of a countervailable benefit to the restructurings as well as the determination that benefits from those swaps passed to Dongbu after an ownership change. The exporter also argued that Commerce incorrectly calculated long-term loan benchmarks (KG Dongbu Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00055).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 20 opinion granted exporter Midwest-CBK's motion to ditch its case on whether sales from a Canadian warehouse to U.S. customers are sales for export to the U.S. or domestic sales. Following a prior CIT ruling finding that the company's imports are sales "for exportation to the United States" and that the goods were not deemed liquidated, the case shifted to how to value the goods.

The Commerce Department correctly relied entirely on adverse facts available (see 2309200030) to calculate a 760% dumping rate for antidumping duty respondent Saffron Living Co. on remand, a group of petitioners, led by Brooklyn Bedding, said in their Oct. 20 remand comments at the Court of International Trade (Brooklyn Bedding v. U.S., CIT # 21-00285).