Steel importer NLMK Pennsylvania and the U.S. asked for another 60 days to continue hammering out the details in the steel company's suit on the Commerce Department's refusal to grant it exclusions for Section 232 steel and aluminum duties. The parties initially sought a stay in August, telling the court that they had "reached an agreement in principle to settle the case" (see 2308100018). In their joint status report, NLMK and the U.S. said to effectuate the deal, the U.S. "must review NLMK's import data," adding that both sides are working to collect and review that data (NLMK Pennsylvania v. U.S., CIT # 21-00507).

The Court of International Trade should sustain the Commerce Department's remand redetermination in an antidumping duty investigation on mattresses from Cambodia, upholding that the agency's use of a simple average in surrogate value cost calculations was legal and its use of financial statements from Emirates Sleep, DOJ said in Sept. 29 remand comments (Best Mattresses International v. U.S., CIT # 21-00281).

The Commerce Department's continued use of adverse facts against Risen Energy for its alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program (EBCP) and its benchmark calculations for land use and ocean freight were lawful and supported by substantial evidence on remand, DOJ said in a Sept. 29 response at the Court of International Trade (Risen Energy v. U.S., CIT # 20-03912).

The Supreme Court of the U.S. on Oct. 2 denied a petition for writ of certiorari from importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Import Supply, regarding an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requiring protests to be filed within 180 days of liquidation. The appellate court rejected the claim that protests can be filed within 180 days of the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP (see 2302060029).

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

U.S. steel companies "confuse" a case from Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) seeking reconsideration of an International Trade Commission negligibility decision due to new facts with an "attack on the original negligibility decision," Erdemir said. Filing a reply brief to the steel companies' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the Court of International Trade's "residual jurisdiction," Erdemir said the true nature of its action challenges the ITC's "refusal to initiate a reconsideration proceeding to reconsider the neglibitily determination" of hot-rolled steel from Turkey "in light of the successful appeal of Colakoglu" (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT # 22-00349).

Countervailing duty petitioner Rebar Trade Action Coalition's attempt to undermine the Commerce Department's remand decision finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, is not a cross-owned input supplier "fall[s] short," the U.S. said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 21-00565).

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

The Court of International Trade in a Sept. 28 order denied a motion to sever filed by exporters led by Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech. Judge Leo Gordon denied the motion without prejudice. The exporters asked to be severed from the joint case on the antidumping duty investigation on steel cut-to-length plate from Germany since its claims have been resolved by the court (see 2309270037). Salzgitter said its case has "no overlap" with the one brought by lead plaintiff AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, noting that disposition of Dillinger's remaining claims will take a significant amount of time (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 17-00158).

The Commerce Department had sufficient domestic industry support to begin and complete an antidumping duty investigation on oil country tubular goods from Argentina, AD petitioners led by U.S. Steel said in a Sept. 22 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Tenaris Bay City, Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).