The U.S. again argued that Byungmin Chae's case at the Court of International Trade challenging one question on his customs broker license exam should be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata, which calls for the dismissal of cases already settled by the court. The Nebraska resident filed suit after his previous case, which he took all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, saw him fall just one question shy of a passing grade on the April 2018 exam (see 2401230031) (Byungmin Chae v. U.S., CIT # 24-00086).

A Vietnamese exporter of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube pushed back against the U.S. claim that the Commerce Department’s rejection of a questionnaire that missed a deadline by a few hours, and its subsequent use of adverse facts available for the exporter, had been warranted and wasn't an abuse of discretion (Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00248).

Exporters Shandong Dongyue Chemical Co. and Huantai Dongyue International Trade Co. filed a stipulation of dismissal regarding their claims in a case challenging the antidumping duty investigation on pentafluoroethane (R-125) from China. The case was originally filed by Shandong Dongyue, Huantai Dongyue and a third exporter, Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. (see 2210270069), and the two exporters dropping their claims said the dismissal only includes their arguments and not those of Sanmei. The exporters brought the case to argue that the Commerce Department illegally valued the factors of production of the intermediate product for a refrigeration, anhydrous hydrofluoric acid, rather than valuing the refrigerant's reported factors of production (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00103).

South Korean exporter Hyundai Steel Co. opposed the Commerce Department's finding on remand that the Korean government's full allocation of carbon emission permits under the Korean Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) during the 2019 review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from South Korea was de facto specific. On remand, Commerce switched from a de jure to a de facto specificity finding (Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00170).

Importer Precision Components filed a reply brief on Aug. 30 at the Court of International Trade in an antidumping scope case, telling the court that the Commerce Department characterized a "raw material as a component and thus impermissibly brought" the materials within the scope of the AD order on tapered roller bearings from China. The record clearly says "the materials at issue are not bearing components or parts of bearings and could not be used in the production of bearings absent significant physical processes performed on the raw materials" (Precision Components v. United States, CIT # 23-00218).

The U.S. and a seller of a chemical product used in the making of plastic asked the Court of International Trade to grant a consent motion to reopen discovery until Nov. 4, saying all expert reports, if any, were to be filed by then (Lanxess Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00073).

Luggage importer Samsonite filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on Aug. 29 to contest CBP's alleged failure to apply Section 301 exclusions granted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to its baggage entries (Samsonite v. United States, CIT # 24-00031).

The U.S. told the Court of International Trade that its inadvertent liquidation of entries subject to an injunction from the court was the result of "human errors." Submitting information requested by the court in response to the injunction violation, the government said its controls to ensure compliance with the court's injunctions weren't followed (Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 24-00025).

A defendant-intervenor Korean exporter of superabsorbent polymers opposed the Commerce Department’s determination (see 2406170034), on remand, that would raise its antidumping margin from 17.64% to 26.05% (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. United States, CIT # 23-00010).

In order to avoid duplicative arguments, Indonesian mattress exporters said simply that they support a U.S. request (see 2408130041) to remand the results of the first antidumping duty review on Indonesian mattresses to consider a calculation error they had alleged (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00001).