The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 10 order granted a U.S. consent request for a remand to reconsider the Commerce Department's decision to deny LE Commodities' 14 requests for exclusions from paying Section 232 duties on specialty steel products. The government said in its motion for remand that it will either grant the requests and exclude the product from the scope of the steel and aluminum duties, deny the requests or "some combination of both" (LE Commodities v. U.S., CIT # 22-00245).

Four Canadian lumber exporters, along with their cross-owned affiliates, referred to as the "Originally Excluded Parties," asked the Court of International Trade to relieve them from the effects of a court order reinstating the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada. The originally excluded parties said the order was based on an earlier judgment, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, concerning the legal ground for conducting expedited CVD reviews, meaning that the trade court should restore "the status quo ante that existed prior" to the order for the remainder of the case (Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 19-00122).

Commerce has wide discretion to change how it defines how a subsidy is specific in countervailing duty cases, countervailing duty petitioners led by Ellwood City Forge Co. said in Oct. 6 remand comments at the Court of International Trade that argued in favor of Commerce's continued finding in a CVD investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks that Germany's KAV program was de jure specific (BGH Edelstahl Siegen v. U.S., CIT # 21-00080).

The Court of International Trade set a briefing schedule in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Thailand following the departure of respondent Saffron Living Co. from the case. Plaintiffs, led by U.S. company Brooklyn Bedding, are to compile and serve their soft appendix within seven days of the Oct. 6 order and then are to file their comments on the Commerce Department's remand results within seven days of the appendix being filed. The U.S. will file its response no later than 15 days after the remand comments (Brooklyn Bedding v. U.S., CIT # 21-00285).

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

The use of adverse facts in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, and the resulting recalculation of rates for separate rate companies, were unlawful and inconsistent with the facts, a group of separate rate respondents led by Jiangsu Guyu International Trading (Jiangsu) said in their Oct. 5 remand comments to the Court of International Trade. Commerce deviated from its established practice when it assigned a separate rate to Jinlong and so it should similarly deviate in recalculating the average rate assigned to the non-individually reviewed companies, Jiangsu said (American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v. U.S., CIT # 21-00595)

The U.S. filed a consent motion for 21 more days to file a motion to dismiss a case from International Rights Advocates seeking to compel DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller to respond to allegations that cocoa imports from Cote d'Ivore were made with forced labor. If granted, the motion to dismiss would be due Nov. 6 (International Rights Advocates v. Mayorkas, CIT # 23-00165).

Chinese printer cartridge maker Ninestar Corp. has until Nov. 7 to reply to the U.S. motion to dismiss Ninestar’s suit against its placement on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List, the Court of International Trade said Oct. 4. Judge Gary Katzmann said the reply can include a response regarding the company's motion for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).

The Court of International Trade in an Oct. 4 order granted a consent motion to remove antidumping duty respondent Saffron Living Co. from a case on the AD investigation on mattresses from Thailand. Per the motion to remove, Saffron said it withdrew from participation in the underlying AD investigation and "has thus concluded that continued participation in this appeal is no longer in its commercial interests" (Brooklyn Bedding. et al. v. United States, CIT # 21-00285).

The Court of International Trade issued a confidential opinion on Oct. 5 in a case from importer Southern Cross Seafoods pertaining to a U.S. move to ban imports of Patagonian toothish, referred to as Chilean sea bass, from the South Georgia fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Per a letter to the litigants, Judge Timothy Reif gave the parties until Oct. 10 to review any potentially confidential information. The U.S. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which has been fully briefed, indicating that the opinion addresses this question, though the docket doesn't indicate which way the judge ruled (Southern Cross Seafoods v. United States, CIT # 22-00299).