Turkish exporter Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari (Erdemir) will appeal its three separate cases filed at the Court of International Trade regarding the sunset review of an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel flat products from Turkey (Eregli Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari v. U.S. International Trade Commission, CIT #'s 22-00349, -00350, -00351).

In a confidential order, the Court of International Trade on Aug. 15 remanded the final results of an administrative review on frozen shrimp from India. In doing so, Judge Thomas Aquilino granted the motions for judgment of both an exporter and a petitioner (Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00202).

Importer CVB filed a stipulation of dismissal in its case challenging the Commerce Department's scope decision finding that the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China doesn't cover seven models of wood platform beds imported by Zinus. Most recently in the case, the U.S. argued that CVB didn't have standing to challenge the scope decision because CVB is an importer and can't show that it was injured by the scope ruling (see 2407160052). The government said none of CVB's goods is at issue. It said the importer challenges the determination that another company's entries are outside the scope of the order, but "it has failed to demonstrate what stake it has in this determination." Counsel for CVB didn't immediately respond to a request for comment (CVB v. U.S., CIT # 24-00036).

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

Antidumping duty petitioner Ventura Coastal and respondent Louis Dreyfus Company Sucos traded briefs on the impact and relevance the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the Chevron principle of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Ventura Coastal v. United States, CIT # 23-00009).

The U.S. said Aug. 12 that the Commerce Department doesn’t have to consider a ministerial error allegation regarding the final results of a review because the error went unnoticed in the preliminary results (The Ancientree Cabinet Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00262).

The gunmaker Glock, embroiled in a dispute regarding the valuation of an entry of imported pistol kits, said Aug. 12 that the U.S.’s objections to its discovery request -- and its subsequent defenses of those objections before the trade court -- were inaccurate and could indicate that the government doesn’t understand the law (Glock v. U.S., CIT # 23-00046).

The U.S. told the Court of International Trade that Southwest Airlines isn't entitled to keep Customs Passenger Processing Fees fees paid by its customers on canceled tickets. Filing a cross-motion for judgment on Aug. 13, the government argued that the airline's cancellation policy, which offers travel credits that Southwest then stores as profits if they go uncollected, can't usurp the law, which requires Southwest to "collect the fee and remit the fees collected to the Government" (Southwest Airlines Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00141).

A domestic glycine producer brought its case to the Court of International Trade to make up for omissions and errors it made in a scope ruling application, the U.S. claimed Aug. 9. It asked the court to reject the producer’s motion for judgment because it had failed to exhaust its arguments during the administrative process (Deer Park Glycine, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00238).

In response to attacks from multiple sides, the U.S. asked the Court of International Trade on Aug. 7 to remand the results of its first antidumping duty review on Indonesian mattresses so that it could look into a calculation error alleged by exporters (PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. U.S., CIT # 24-00001).