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 U.S. asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Oct. 5 for 14 more days to file its reply brief in a case on the antidumping duty investigation on utility scale wind towers from Canada. The government said a second extension -- the first was 58 days long -- is required by its heavy workload in other matters. All the parties consented to the motion, though Jay Campbell, counsel for appellants led by Marmen Inc., said the companies believe that an extension is unwarranted, given the first, 58-day, extension (Marmen v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1877).

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).

The Commerce Department made multiple errors when it miscalculated benchmark data and its use of adverse inferences in a countervailing duty review on multilayered wood flooring from China, Chinese wood flooring exporters and consolidated plaintiffs Fine Furniture (Shanghai) and Double F said in an Sept. 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The brief raised similar points to one filed by respondent Baroque Timber Industries two weeks earlier (see 2309180042) (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00210).

The Commerce Department's failure to use a weighted average to calculate the denominator of the Cohen’s d test coefficient in an antidumping duty case remand was contrary to the underlying academic literature and produced unreasonable results, a group of AD respondents said in their Oct. 2 comments to the Court of International Trade. The respondents argued that Commerce failed to explain its choice in the face of its own practice and judicial precedent and have asked the court to remand the case to Commerce with instructions to calculate the denominator of the Cohen’s d equation either by weight averaging the standard deviations of the test group and the comparison group or by relying on the standard deviation of the entire population (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 15-00213).

The U.S. asked for an extended stay in a customs penalty suit against Greenlight Organic and its owner Parambir Singh "Sonny" Aulakh given that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York opened a criminal investigation on the evidence recovered during a search of Aulakh's residence. Filing a status report in the Court of International Trade, the government said the case should be stayed until Jan. 2, after which the U.S. will file another status report "updating the Court on whether a continued stay is needed" (United States v. Greenlight Organic, CIT # 17-00031).

The Commerce Department unlawfully chose to include sales of wood chips in its calculation of market value and incorrectly found that one of Canfor's sawmills purchased electricity from an affiliate, the Canadian softwood lumber exporter said in its Oct. 2 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The department's use of a differential pricing method also was unlawful, the exporter said in its request for remand (Canfor Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00188).

A proposed voluntary remand of an Enforce and Protect Act case should be allowed to proceed as is, over an importer's objections, DOJ said in an Oct. 2 brief to the Court of International Trade. DOJ filed a motion to remand the case in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Royal Brush Manufacturing v. U.S., in which the court said CBP violated an EAPA party's due process rights by not granting them access to business confidential information (see 2309150011) (Newtrend USA Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00347).

Commerce's use of adverse facts available for the Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) in the review of a countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China was unlawful because there wasn't actually a gap in the record as to whether exporter Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum and its customers used the program, the exporter said in an Oct. 2 brief at the Court of International Trade. Even if there was, Commerce failed to provide exporter Alcha with a chance to fix it, the exporter said (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00290).

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