The U.S. asked for an amended protective order in a case brought by Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. to challenge its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. The request comes on the heels of Ninestar's request for the Court of International Trade to compel production of the confidential information used in the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force's review of Ninestar (see 2310180025) (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The U.S. asked for 17 more days to file its reply brief in the lead case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in its analysis of "masked" dumping in antidumping duty proceedings. The brief is currently due on Oct. 20 and the extension request, the second of its kind for the U.S. following a prior 45-day extension, would see the brief due Nov. 6 if granted. Exporter and appellant SeAH Steel Corp. told the government it objects to the motion (Stupp Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1663).

The Supreme Court hasn't decided a case using its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council since 2016, prompting the question not of whether it should be overruled but whether the high court "should let lower courts and citizens in on the news," commercial fishing companies led by Loper Bright Enterprises argued. Filing a reply brief in a key case on Chevron, which grants deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, the fishing companies said the decision "has already proven itself unworkable, and its corrosive effects on our separation of powers have lingered long enough" (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, Sup. Ct. # 22-451).

The Commerce Department shouldn't have relied on adverse facts available in an antidumping duty review on tapered roller bearings from China when the respondent was fully cooperative, Chinese roller bearing exporter Shanghai Tainai Bearing said in an Oct. 19 reply at Court of International Trade. Tainai didn't dispute a gap in the record due to incomplete or nonexistent responses from its suppliers. However, the company objected to the use of adverse inferences because it says it complied to the best of its ability (Shanghai Tainai Bearing v. U.S., CIT # 23-00020).

Three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges -- Kimberly Moore, Sharon Prost and Richard Taranto -- moved for assistance from the District Court for the District of Columbia in settling a dispute between the trio and their colleague, Judge Pauline Newman, over a mediation confidentiality agreement. While the motion, brought as part of Newman's case against her colleagues' investigation into her fitness to continue serving as a judge, was silent on the nature of the dispute, the judges discussed ways the court could settle it (The Hon. Pauline Newman v. The Hon. Kimberly A. Moore, D.D.C. # 23-01334).

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

The International Trade Commission performed only a "cursory analysis" and presumed causation where none existed in its antidumping duty injury investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina and Mexico, Tenaris Bay City and consolidated plaintiffs from two other cases said in an Oct. 12 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Tenaris Bay City, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00344).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an Oct. 17 order granted a stay in a case on the Enforce and Protect Act investigation on the alleged transshipment of Chinese xanthan gum via India until 30 days after all appeals are foreclosed in the key Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States case. In Royal Brush, the appellate court said that CBP violated an importer's due process rights in an EAPA investigation by not providing that company access to the business confidential information in the proceeding (see 2307270038) (All One God Faith v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1078, -1081).

Imported wood and metal seats met the requirements for Section 301 tariff exclusions but had those duties unlawfully levied upon them by CBP, Georgia-based furniture importer and wholesaler Belnick said in its Oct. 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Belnick v. U.S., CIT # 23-00072).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 13 order dismissed importer Kuester Systems Mexico's customs case on the classification of the company's motor vehicle parts. The trade court case was a protective filing while the company negotiated with CBP, S. Richard Shostak, counsel for Kuester, said in an email to Trade Law Daily. CBP allowed a related protest, recognizing the importer's claim that the goods qualified for duty-free NAFTA treatment, Shostak said. The CIT suit concerned certain motor vehicle parts classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8708.29.5160 (Kuester Systems Mexico S de RL v. U.S., CIT # 22-00331).